The other day me and a friend were having a conversation about the Bible and the idea that Jesus had brothers and sisters came up. What do you guys think? The Bible mentions his four brothers, and that he has sisters. Are these referring to cousins or friends, or do you think it is literal? Does it really even matter?

Depends on who you ask.

 

I think Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus, thus they were literal brothers and sisters. Or, if you prefer, half brothers and sisters.

 

That seems to be clearly stated.

That's how I feel as well. Not really from a particular biblical perspective, but just from a human one. Mary and Joseph were married, so "Bibicially" it was okay for them to have intercourse and have children.

 

Just on a natural level I think it would be normal for them to have had children, and as far as the Bible goes I see nothing as to where Mary was told to never have sex. She was a virgin when she had Jesus, but I don't think she had to remain like that for life. Her virginity made the birth "immaculate", so I don't think it was necessary for her to refrain from sex after she he was born because she was married.

 

I'm not coming from a set denomination, I just try to look at the humanistic side of the Bible, Koran or any other text.

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

Edited July 10, 200917 yr by spindoc

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Greek nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

 

I can get number 1.

 

For number 2, in the literal sense I would take that as "I cannot be pregnant because I'm a virgin". If she couldn't have children, why would Joseph marry her. In those times, marriage was more about extending the family and having children than it is finding a companion like in today's times. Joseph was going to marry her before Jesus was announced to them so I don't buy that she couldn't/wouldn't have sex.

 

Number 3, that could be a translation thing. Or could it be because he is the son of Mary, while the older children would be the sons/daughters of Mary and Joseph?

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Greek nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

 

 

 

I think they are all three pretty much a strech, especially the last 2.

I can get number 1.

 

For number 2, in the literal sense I would take that as "I cannot be pregnant because I'm a virgin". If she couldn't have children, why would Joseph marry her. In those times, marriage was more about extending the family and having children than it is finding a companion like in today's times. Joseph was going to marry her before Jesus was announced to them so I don't buy that she couldn't/wouldn't have sex.

 

Number 3, that could be a translation thing. Or could it be because he is the son of Mary, while the older children would be the sons/daughters of Mary and Joseph?

I think they are all three pretty much a strech, especially the last 2.

 

 

2. What I am saying is that Luke 1:31 states "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son." There is no reason why Mary would not assume that she would have relations with her soon-to-be-husband Joseph, and then conceive. This is normal. However, clearly she did not assume that her and Joseph would have relations- perhaps because of her vow.

 

3. I don't believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, had any other children. It is possible that Joseph (who is believed to have been a widower) could have had older children; the article that I linked says, "Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ "brothers" who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:9). However, I don't believe that these children (if they existed) are mentioned in the Bible.

That's how I feel as well. Not really from a particular biblical perspective, but just from a human one. Mary and Joseph were married, so "Bibicially" it was okay for them to have intercourse and have children.

 

Just on a natural level I think it would be normal for them to have had children, and as far as the Bible goes I see nothing as to where Mary was told to never have sex. She was a virgin when she had Jesus, but I don't think she had to remain like that for life. Her virginity made the birth "immaculate", so I don't think it was necessary for her to refrain from sex after she he was born because she was married.

 

I'm not coming from a set denomination, I just try to look at the humanistic side of the Bible, Koran or any other text.

 

:thumb:

That's how I feel as well. Not really from a particular biblical perspective, but just from a human one. Mary and Joseph were married, so "Bibicially" it was okay for them to have intercourse and have children.

 

Just on a natural level I think it would be normal for them to have had children, and as far as the Bible goes I see nothing as to where Mary was told to never have sex. She was a virgin when she had Jesus, but I don't think she had to remain like that for life. Her virginity made the birth "immaculate", so I don't think it was necessary for her to refrain from sex after she he was born because she was married.

 

I'm not coming from a set denomination, I just try to look at the humanistic side of the Bible, Koran or any other text.

As the article that I cited states, "[some say] it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages "unnatural" arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Greek nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

 

 

I don't see any of those being believable or valid....

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Greek nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

 

 

 

I think they are all three pretty much a strech, especially the last 2.

I think they are all three pretty much a strech, especially the last 2.

 

You already said that. I'm not being a smart alec, I really don't see what's so unbelievable about them. They seem perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Another thing the article mentions is the fact that, in Eastern societies (keep in mind that Palestine is in Asia), elder brothers often give younger brothers advice, but it is considered improper for younger brothers to give older brothers advice, and if you see Mark 3:21 or John 7:3-4, it would have been improper as younger siblings.

As the article that I cited states, "[some say] it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages "unnatural" arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

 

Mary and Joseph were human beings. I would expect that they had the same needs and urges that all of us have. Just cannot imagine a couple not enjoying all of the "God given and approved" pleasures of marriage. If Mary wasn't allowed to have sex even after marriage, what does that tell us about the rest of us? Are we not suppose to have sex? I don't think the rules are different for her. Jesus showed that by being baptized in a sense, IMO, that everyone has to follow God's words to the best of their ability.

That was an accidental second post of the same thing. The epistle of James was written by the half-brother of Jesus Christ.

Mary and Joseph were human beings. I would expect that they had the same needs and urges that all of us have. Just cannot imagine a couple not enjoying all of the "God given and approved" pleasures of marriage. If Mary wasn't allowed to have sex even after marriage, what does that tell us about the rest of us? Are we not suppose to have sex? I don't think the rules are different for her. Jesus showed that by being baptized in a sense, IMO, that everyone has to follow God's words to the best of their ability.

I'm not saying she wasn't allowed; I'm saying that it's possible that she took a vow of virginity, which still exists today (see "consecrated virgins" and priests' vow of celibacy). I'm not saying that the Bible deems it immoral for a married couple to have sex.

 

I get what you are saying about you can't imagine them not enjoying the pleasures of marriage, but A) plenty of people don't have sex (for a variety of reasons) and B) they weren't exactly a normal couple, between the angel visitations and the virgin births. :lol:

 

Basically it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion between Catholics and Protestants on their view of Mary. I consider Mary to be more than just a woman, I consider to be the model of Christian devotion.