Did Jesus have brothers?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2014
- www.catholic.com/
Catholic Answers apologist Trent Horn answers a caller who asks if Jesus had brothers.
Ever since he converted to Catholicism at the age of seventeen, Trent Horn has had a passion for explaining and defending the Faith. After earning a degree in history from Arizona State University, Trent traveled the country training pro-life advocates on college campuses to engage opponents in compassionate and persuasive dialogue. After completing a master's degree in theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Trent served as the Respect Life Coordinator for the Diocese of Phoenix. In 2012 he joined Catholic Answers as a speaker and staff apologist.
Trent is a dynamic and experienced public speaker who has given hundreds of presentations, from high school assemblies to keynote conference talks. He is a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live and is also the author of Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity published by Catholic Answers Press.
www.catholic.com/trenthorn
But if they were Joseph's older children why were they not at the birth of Jesus? Joseph was only in Bethlehem because of the census where he would have to take his whole family with him....so why are we told that it was just a pregnant Mary that he took to Bethlehem
It would be cool to have notes posted on what is said in each clip. Such as verses, vocabulary words, authors, etc.
I have wondered why Jesus would entrust his mother to John, the Beloved
(in Matthew 19: 26-27) if he had other siblings through Mary. Then, I
figured it may have been because they were not true believers as was
John. I mean- they did attempt to discourage him from his ministry.
At any rate- she was not entrusted to anyone else so that would STRONGLY suggest
that He was her only biological child. It would have been against the custom of the day if she had other children to care for her.
If Jesus had brothers born from the same mother, he wouldn't have asked Jhon ("the disciple whom he loved") to look after his mother like a son; his brothers would have looked after her after his death. So, the word brothers eithter stands for stepbrothers, born from Joseph in a previous marriage, or cousins (other possible meaning of adelphos), or brothers in faith.
Jhon 20.26 Jesus therefore seeing his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing by, says to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
27 Then he says to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
that isn't necessarily true. Jesus claims that all the believers who do the will of his father are his brothers and mothers. If you were dying and you had a spiritual brother beside you it would be very logical and reasonable to ask him or her to take care of your real mother.
The only reason the roman church can't say he had brothers is so it fits with they're theological position of Mary. Clearly and logically we can see that the scriptures indicate that James was the lords brother. to make more of this is to try and fit it into a pre-conceived theological position.
galatians 1:19 "I saw none of the other apostles, only James the Lords brother"
joe stitch Sorry but if James was Mary's son it would have no sense to ask someone else to take care of her as if her son was not trust worthy.
Moreover, your own argument can be used to disprove the claim of Jesus having brothers . Your statement that Jesus claims that all the believers who do the will of his father are his brothers and mothers, can be applied to galatians 1:19 where the term brother could as well mean spiritual brother.
As a matter of fact christianity has never believed that Jesus had brothers untill protestants agued the contrary 1500 years after Christ in what actually was and still is "a pre-conceived theological position".
Duke - SWT Mate So did Jhon.
In the jewish contest of the time, not caring for your mother was unthinkable.
the last verse in the first chapter of Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary until after the birth of Christ, some versions say he did not have knowledge of her and one version says he did not have relations with her
King James language to know someone means to have sexual relation
Do you know all of your friends and family?
Recently a thought came to me about this issue. What would be the viewpoint of Joseph the husband of Mary be? What did he know? For one thing he knew Mary to be the virginal mother of Jesus. He was instructed by an angel as such. He also knew that Jesus was the Messiah. Now, knowing that Mary was the virginal mother of the messiah and the mother of God, would he have had a disposition to have marital relations with her after the birth of Jesus? My view is that no holy and righteous man would ever have wanted to have marital relations with the virgin mother of God.
Coming from a reformist perspective, While we revere Mary above all women as the blessed mother of God, she holds no special position in our relationship with God. I believe that we are taught that Joesph did not have relations with Mary while she carried Jesus, but as there are apostles who are called "brothers of Jesus" in the Greek that is the word for blood relations, I would presume that these are the children of Mary and Joesph..
dreed007 This only makes sense for Joseph, the husband who perfectly fits the gospel writers' agenda. Real people do human things. Later authors change how they view the world. Generations later these authors would not be able to talk to Joseph, who undoubtedly died when Jesus was a teen. So how do Roman Catholics or fundamentalist know what Joseph the Nazareth carpenter felt. Joseph;s head was probably spinning. Angels are terrrifying. They are not every day people in normal life.
If I were Joseph, I would value chastity and sober behavior. Mary was a young maid and obviously unmarried. If Joseph betrayed her trust, Mary, whom he probably loved and respected, would be stoned to death. Men and even women do not hesitate to stone women to death. Maybe she was raped. Perhaps she was the victim of a first century date rape drug. We don't know. The crucial part is that Joseph decided to marry her, whether she was a virign or a chaste girl. young maid who had a traumatic encounter. She was no whore. The male apostles and Magdalene would not accept the son of a whore.
Why can't Christians ever view these people are normal humans, interacting with God in ways that humans do today. Life is not a Cecile B. DeMille production. Jesus did not have blue eyes, blonde hair, and sparkling, charismatic eyes. I doubt he spoke with a perfect Royal Shakespearean British accent. He spoke with a Nazareth accent. Actors have different accents in their actual normal lives. The great lesson for me is that God reaches us in our ordinariness and mundanenss. If Cecile B. DeMille moments happened, these people would be so traumatized with post traumatic stress syndrome that they could not do anything good.
If the Epiphanian view is correct, how would Jesus be heir to the Davidic throne since he would not be Joseph's first born?
Can't remember the source of this but it explains it:
"The only family members we know about are those that are called Jesus's brothers and sisters. But since they were sons and daughters of a man named Alpheus (aka Cleopas or Clopas) and his wife Mary (who is distinct from the Virgin Mary since both Marys are depicted in John 19:25 as standing at the foot of the cross), they obviously aren't blood siblings of Jesus. They appear to have lived in the same household though, for at least part of Jesus' life, probably because Alpheus or his wife were related somehow to Joseph or Mary, and possibly because the sons were apprenticed to Joseph in his carpentry shop. Two of them, James and Jude, were leaders in the early church and left us NT letters. The descendents of these relatives of Jesus were called Desposyni. Most of them hid (or tried to hide) from the Romans after Jesus was executed because they feared that the Romans might come after them as well. "
+Prancer1231 I respect many forms of Roman Catholicism, even though I am high church Anglican. In the past, I would welcome any pope to NYC, my home. For any pope to address a joint session of Congress is despicable. Yet I applaud the decision to welcome Pope Francis based on this pope and the problems with ISIS we all face. Jesus probably had brothers. This is shocking to most Catholics, but please grow up. You are being fed only some Roman Catholic theology, not all of it. Secular academics believe Jesus probably did. Not all, but most. Some believe James was either an older step brother or even a twin brother. I do not care about saints who never lived! Nor do most educated Catholics. If you can cite an early Christian source or reputable Church Father,...and there are none, to prove Joseph virginity or whether Jesus had twin brothers or older brothers...I shall change my tune.
Ezekiel 44:2, which declares that "no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord enters the world.
+Bryan Fillups
Interesting take.
8~ )
Jesus has died to institute the priesthood. It was not necessary for the Redeemer to die in order to save the world. A drop of his blood, a single tear, or prayer, was sufficient to procure salvation for all; for such a prayer, being of infinite value, should be sufficient to save not one but a thousand worlds. But to institute the priesthood, the death of Jesus Christ has been necessary. Had he not died, where should we find the victim that the priests of the New Law now offer, a victim altogether holy and immaculate, capable of giving to God an honor worthy of God? As has been already said, all the lives of men and angels are not capable of giving to God an infinite honor like that, which a priest offers to him by a single Mass.
~ From Dignity and Duties of the Priesthood by St. Alphonsus Liguori ~
Holy Mary mother of god pray for us sinners now & at the hour of our death Amen ✝✝✝
Hebrew does not have a word for "cousin," and so the Septuagint yields the relationship between Abraham and Lot as ἀδελφός (adelphos), as you have pointed out. However, there is a perfectly good work in Koine Greek for "cousin": ἀνεψιός (anepsios), used by Paul in Colossians 4:10. If Paul wanted to mean "cousin" in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, he would have used ἀνεψιός, not ἀδελφός. Same for the gospel writers.
As you have rightly identified, there is no Hebrew word for cousin. Therefore it was culturally acceptable to use the Greek work adelphos for a wide range of relationships. This carries over into the New Testament as well. We therefore can't assume that just because Paul used anepsios in some cases that this means that if it is not used then adelphos must not mean cousin. Given the general use of adelphos in that culture it is difficult to argue that case.
Who does Trent Horn’s voice remind me of? Anyone?
Matthew 13: 55Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
The Protestants Use Matthew 13:55 against not only Catholics but it is also against Jesus and His Mother Mary. Matthew 13:55 can not HOLD WATER regarding Mary had other Children because these Jews got it WRONG by saying: "Is this the Carpenter's son" for again, all Christians now know that Joseph, was not the True Father of Jesus. Amen.
1. The Jews thought, Joseph was the the Father of Jesus Christ, in the literal sense as we know Joseph, was not the the Father of Jesus Christ.
2. The Jews got it WRONG re: Joseph being the Father of Jesus, and if they got it wrong so then James and Joseph and Simon, and Jude are not the brothers of Christ in the literal sense.
All True Christian must agree with Catholic Church, that Joseph is not the TRUE father, of Jesus? These Jews above, did not know any better, they ASSUMED, That Joseph was the Father of Jesus and they therefore these Jews above, also, ASSUMED that he had be Brothers and were also sons of Mary.
The only thing these Jews got RIGHT is: "Is not His Mother Called Mary," YES!!!
There is two reasons why Jesus Christ gave Mary to John as MOTHER and John to Mary as Son: (1) to give Mary as Mother to all Christians. (2) and because Jesus Christ knew that Mary His Mother had no other sons or daughter to take care of Her, as any Jewish family would do, therefore John had to take Care of Her and scripture states he did so IMMEDIATELY and took Her to his home, because she had no one else.
If you are a TRUE Christian, YOU TOO would, TAKE Mary as YOUR Mother into YOUR own HOME, YOU do so because you want to BE the Spiritual Brothers and Sisters of Jesus Christ.
What TRUE Christian would not want Virgin Mary as Mother? Answer me this QUESTION first before another!!! Amen
Joseph was a Virgin too, although much older than Mary. In fact, Joseph helped bury Mary's Dad when He died. Joseph had sworn an oath of celibacy as Mary did from an early age. It was their temple that arranged their marriage. All of my information comes from the writings of Maria Valtorta.
I also have some personal messages from St Joseph and Blessed Mother Mary from the visions of a close friend who is a powerful visionary. Feel free to visit my site. God Bless. John D.
Excuse me what personal message would Joseph give you to convince you that he was, indeed, a virgin. Only Joseph and God would know, Not you. Joseph does not seem the type to casually discuss his sexual life with you. When you combine such a fact with the fact that he probably would never want his wife and children to be embarassed, I doubt you know.
very nice.
But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1 v25
Psalm 110:1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, TILL I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
Does Christ cease sitting at the right hand of the Father after His enemies became His footstool? Certainly not... Therefore, till/until does not necessarily mean cessation of position.
James Clarke Ooh, James Clarke knows his preschool Catholic catechism which is nice for preschoolers. Many people can still have faith and acknowledge the realities of human situations. It does not mean that Jesus was not the Son of Man or a Son of God.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. That sentence implies to me that he 'knew' her AFTER the birth.
Did you know your mother after you were born?
Did Jesus have children
Virgin Mary remained virgin all her Life...Holy Mary Mother Of God Pray For Us Sinners now & @ the hour of our death Amen..
+subhi saloom -serious ? how can a woman be a virgin when she has had a child ? no where in this world is such nonsense accepted-sorry.I doctor would not buy that story from you,
the scriptures indicate that only one perfect sinless person ever lived. Jesus. Not one of the NT writers indicate or make any reference to Mary being sinless. Blessed yes. Sinless no. Quite the contrary. They indicate that specifically that there was only one sinless man in all of history. This dogma was created to make sense of Jesus's divine nature and birth that would fit into the roman pre-conceived theological position.
Jesus is your salvation. No one else. Start praying more to him directly and less to the catholic saints and Mary. The veil was torn at the cross of Calvary to give us direct access to the father through the son. Unlike the OT ways where the priest had to approach God on behave of the congregation and offer sacrifices.
It's all about Jesus.
Honestly, this is a weak argument. To say that Jesus did not have biological brothers and sisters but that we are using the word brother differently than it was intended is weak. Is it not the practice in the Bible when they're speaking of people to say the persons name son of so-and-so? The Bible specifically states that Joseph and there he had four sons other than Jesus and they had two daughters. If those were not his biological brothers and sisters, would they not have named them and name who their parents work? There is no real value in holding on to believing that Mary was a virgin her entire life. Did she ever take a explicit Val of chastity? If so Would not have been clearly and explicitly stated in God's word? Mary's purity does not come from her own goodness but from God. None of our righteousness comes from ourselves.
+Natalie Johnson A good example is Genesis 13:8 it says: So Abram said to Lot, "Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Obviously there were not brothers, Lot is Abram's nephew, and he called him brother. God Bless.
+Natalie Johnson Not sure if you'll see this, but I'd just like to add that because Jesus gave the Mary to the beloved disciple. In Jewish tradition and even in present day tradition, you don't just give your mother to a random guy no matter their relationship to you. The care of Mary would have gone to one of Jesus' blood brothers if he had any. Which since he gave the disciple his mother shows that He had no blood brothers.
When the bible says that JESUS had brothers- and then it calls JESUS the firstborn son of Mary- then logically we can say that those children were the sons of Joseph- with someone else previous to marring Mary/ or that he was a widow- there is no other way to explain it.
Tim Spangler- since you are a catholic it will never make sense for you-because the bible is not the final authority for you.
The bible makes it clear-JESUS was marry firstborn son.
JESUS had brothers-the only logical conclusion is that Joseph had children prior to getting married to Marry with someone else.
Dr. Alan Hales- I don't know where you got that theory that the believe that joseph was previously married is just a pagan belief.
Adelphos - A BROTHER, NEAR KINGSMAN, OR RELATIVE, ONE OF THE SAME NATION OR NATURE, A MEMBER OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY .
Are you trying to mislead me ? I have seen this same kind of MO with the Jehovah witnesses .
The Greek is clear-adelphos means brother.
Why don't the bible called the apostles brothers of JESUS ? it calls them apostles or by their names. do you see how your view don't fit with the bible ?
What kind of Doctor are you ? I have discussed this issue with a medicine Doctor, with Bible Scholars , since JESUS was Mary firstborn son- the only logic would be that Joseph was married before.
When I check the Greek meaning of Adelphos it had nothing about spiritual brothers, where you get that from ? or is this like -I like this definition better than the other one ?
Dr. Alan Hales-
Doctor, I respect your education, just tying to figure out things -things are not matching here.
Your view is that when the bible says JESUS had brothers and sisters it simply means sisters as in church sisters, and not sisters as from a mother or father.
I did check the Greek definition and I say brothers as in RELATIVE/ from father or mother.
Are you a catholic ?
thanks for sharing.
Dr. Alan Hales- Sorry Doctor - no disrespect to you-but I Check the meaning of the Greek word for brother an there is nothing there to suggest what you said before"spiritual brothers" the definition was clear- "relative, of the same family.
Dr. Alan Hales- Nothing in the Greek definition said anything about spiritual brother, it said brother as in relative.
You are not putting 1 Cor 14:26 in the right context-what you are doing is putting 1 Cor 14:26 -then take it to the gospel of Mathew, etc and say see- brothers means spiritual brothers in1 Cor 14:26- so it has to mean the same thing when the bible says JESUS had brothers and sisters. and that don't work.
Because in Matthew 13:55 James, joseph, Simon & Judas -its talking about Mary as Mother of JESUS,and the rest as JESUS Adelphos( Relatives) not spiritual brothers.
Also back then sons were named after their Fathers,at least 1- and we see that in the vey name Joseph-JESUS brother-who was son of Mary Husband.
Are you sure you are a Doctor in theology ?
Mary did have other sons...I'll prove it. Psalm 69, a prophetic psalm about the Messiah says so...explicitly verse 8, but here's 8 & 9. (8)"I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. (9)For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
Here, the psalmist being moved by the Holy Ghost writes that the Messiah's mother, who is Mary, had other sons.
Please, let's not make Mary more than what scripture expresses. And let's not add or subtract to God's word...
I'll respond to your comment in a moment, Jeremy, but first I would address what James Clarke had to say:
The word "until" in the 25th verse of The Gospel of St. Matthew does not at all indicate that a consummation of the marriage took place after the birth of Christ. To give an equivalent expression of the word, one might say, "I did not have a meal until 9am this morning". The statement that a subject did not partake of food until a given time does not at all give any indication that food was consumed after the time given. Though the word "until" is used, it does not logically follow that what did not occur until a given time must necessarily occur afterwards; the use merely expresses that X did not occur during Y period of time, and there is no reason to believe that X occurred after Y period of time.
Now to your claim, Jeremy:
To simplify, the principal evidence for your argument within the psalm consists in verse 8. Outwardly it would indeed seem to be referring to the Blessed Virgin, as the psalm does contain many messianic elements within. Psalms, however, are not to be held in the same esteem with which traditional prophesy is regarded, as psalms often reflect circumstances of the psalmist. Even though many lines of the psalm are directly attributed to Christ within scripture itself ("Zeal for thy house has consumed me" being Christ's indignation at the money-changers in the Temple), the psalm is not itself strictly Christological.
Within the same psalm, verse 5, we see, “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you.” I ask you, brother, for what folly is Christ responsible and of what might he accuse Himself of being guilty? Such an assertion is outright blasphemy. You and I both know well that Our Lord, the Incarnate Word cannot contradict Himself, hence the psalm cannot possibly refer strictly to Christ, though elements of it certainly do.
As to the matter of the "mother" to which the psalmist refers; there is no reason to believe that this "mother" is beyond a reasonable doubt Our Lady, it most certainly could also refer to mother Israel and her sons (the Jews), in the house of the Lord, i.e. the Temple.
However, let us for a moment assume that it does indeed refer to the Blessed Virgin, this too is not at all contradictory to Church teaching regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, as her sons need not be biological. This claim I support in two ways:
1) Baptism: In the Gospel of St. John 3:3, Our Lord tells us that "... Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The Lord does not mince words, and when he employs metaphor, he clarifies. When Nicodemus questioned Christ regarding the necessity of rebirth, the Lord clarified with the above quoted verse. The notion of birth is a consistent theme regarding baptism. If the Lord had intended a more accurate term such as "refashioned" or "remade", He would have stated it thus. Yet "born" is the word Our Dearly Beloved Lord has chosen, and birth necessarily requires a woman. Through baptism we become part of the Body of Christ, and as Christ's members in his mystical body of which He is head, we are therefore - by virtue of Baptism - also mystically born of Mary. Amen, we become coheirs with Christ and co-redeemers with Him who first ransomed us from the bonds of sin and death through the sacrament of Baptism whereby the sins of our first parents are undone. This is only accomplished if we are part of his body, and his body was born of woman, and this woman is the Blessed Virgin. We are therefore her sons in this manner, and Christ's brothers.
2) The Woman: In the Book of Revelation, the woman who was "clothed with the sun" is quite clearly the Blessed Virgin, as the child to whom she gives birth is Christ. The sons of of this woman are stated to be thus in Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea." We also see here, that those who are called her sons are not so out of biological means, but of spiritual means (as of which Christ had spoken above in the verses to follow John 3:3, John 3:6 to be exact), as they are those who "keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus".
I do hope this has served to be a point of clarification for you. May God bless and keep you always.
In Christ,
Jamieson
So, Jeremy, by your logic, Psalm 69:5 would therefore prove Jesus was also a SINNER!!!! Joseph could not touch Mary as she was the sacred Ark of the New Covenant, from whom the Word took His flesh.
Timothée HAYES No, i agree with Jamieson, atleast now i do on the part that only certain scriptures refer to Christ, for now. So what does Matthew 1:25 say?
Jamieson Cannata I love you brother. You too Timothy. "To them gave he the power to become the children of God, who are not born of blood nor the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13) The Spirit begets. "that which is born of flesh is of flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6) It's a spiritual rebirth in which a woman is not needed because it is spiritual, not fleshly.
The Woman in Revelation.
You remember Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9-10. It reads, "And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, behold i have dreamed a dream more; and behold, the SUN, the MOON, and the 11 (Joseph is the 12th) STARS made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall i and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?" I say it's Israel. Isaiah 9:6 says, "To us, a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders. He was born to a group through Mary. This make sense?
maybe you can show us in the Bible where it said Mary being a virgin before and after Jesus. isn't it funny when the Bible is not lining up with our believe we have to go to a different language to find clarification.I'm certain Mary had more children