Catholics: Why do your Bibles say that Jesus had fleshly brothers and sisters (read details before answering)?

Excellent into. I was raised Catholic. Now I am a sociologist.This information is very enlightening, Thanks again.

Its funny how Catholics raise such a fit over such a simple matter. The Scriptures give no reason why Mary should have remained a virgin. Having other children would have had no effect on Jesus. But having other children WOULD have an effect on the image of their Goddess, Mary; that is the heart of this issue. Catholics cannot stand the thought of lowering their "Mother Goddess" figure down to the level of an ordinary human (See answer from Lizrz and Jackie above). As for the evidence, I will reiterate the points that I made on a similar questions 2 weeks ago:

That Jesus had half brothers and sisters the Bible clearly states. The fact that Jesus was mentioned as Mary’s firstborn implies that Mary must have had other children. (Luke 2:7) Furthermore, these other children must have been by means of her husband Joseph, because it is recorded that Joseph had relations with her after Jesus was born. (Matt. 1:25) It would be foolish to assert that Joseph would somehow be forbidden to have relations with HIS OWN WIFE after Jesus' birth, especially considering that the angel spoke nothing of forced celibacy in his instructions to Joseph and Mary. The two scriptures that mention that Jesus had sisters, though they are not individually mentioned by name, indicate that in their home town of Nazareth the whole family of boys and girls were well known. (Matt. 13:56; Mark 6:3) The Bible gives the names of Jesus’ brothers as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. (Matt. 13:55)

And as regards assertions by some here on the subject of the Greek words used to distinguish family members, there are distinct Greek words for brother and cousin. “‘This is the carpenter the son of Mary and the brother [Greek, a·del·phos′] of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, is it not? And his sisters [Greek, a·del·phai′] are here with us, are they not?’ So they began to stumble at him.” (Mark 6:3) “Do not call . . . your relatives [Greek, syg·ge·neis′].” (Luke 14:12) “Mark the cousin [Greek, a·ne·psi·os′] of Barnabas . . .” (Colossians 4:10)

So whether or not the words in the Hebrew Aramaic language for "brother" and "cousin" were the same does not matter AT ALL. The fact is that in Koine GREEK, there were two distinct words, and the writers of the GREEK Scriptures CHOSE to use the distinct word for "brother" and not "cousin."

John P. Meier, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of America, wrote: “In the N[ew] T[estament] adelphos [brother], when used not merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical or legal relationship, means only full or half-brother, and nothing else.”

=Edit=

Congratulations Johnny De! You've given the statistically worst answer that I've ever seen =) *hands Johnny De a little trophy*

Breakdown of Johnny De's answer:

1164 Words long

Out of those 1164 words, 229 (20%) actually attempt to make points.

Out of those 229 words, he makes 3 points, 2 of which are irrelevant

1. We were there, we know

2. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic (even though the original Hebrew Aramaic copy no longer exists anywhere)

3. The siblings were not at the execution

The remaining 935 words (80%) consist entirely of ad hominem attacks on the askers abilities and on the faith of protestants.

Favorite Johnny De Quotes:

“is this what you learned from Chuck Smith? How to lie in writing?”

"not that greek is even important because it is not.”

"We don't rely on the bible for our information, we were there and then we wrote the bible."

Recently an archeological find of great importance to Bible scholars was announced in the press. An ossuary (bone box) surfaced as part of a private collection with the inscription “James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.” In June 2003 the Israel Antiquities Authority declared it a forgery.

In the New Testament there are passages referring to Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

“Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters our neighbors here? (Mk. 6: 3, 3: 21, 31, Mt. 13: 56, Jn. 7: 5, Gal. 1: 19).

Most main line churches support the doctrine of the virgin birth which is presented in the Gospels and handed down in the Nicene Creed. However in Roman Catholic theology we also describe the Blessed Mother as “ever virgin” which arose early in Christianity. It was very much part of theology in the Middle Ages. It appeared in the reformers confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli; Book of Concord, Smalcald Articles).

Who then were these so called “brothers and sisters of Jesus?”

The setting in which the family of Jesus lived was Hebrew-Aramaic. In those languages there were limited words for relationships. On the male side there is only father, son, or brother. On the female side there is only mother, sister, or daughter. There are no words for cousin, uncle, aunt, etc.

Thus when the Greek New Testament was written, the Aramaic relationship of brother and sister was handed down. It is not far fetched to assume that Jesus and his family were remembered according to the view presented in the original Hebrew-Aramaic setting.

If they weren’t brothers and sisters (adelphos/adelphe in Greek), who were they?

Some who accepted the ancient tradition that Mary was “ever virgin” believed that these “brothers” were actually half-brothers of Jesus; sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. He was therefore a widower with children when he took Mary who was with child into his home. There were no subsequent marital demands since Joseph was elderly. Joseph made no appearances during Jesus’ ministry since he was already deceased. Mary raised Joseph’s children. This was the theory of Epiphanius, an Eastern Church father.

The eminent Scripture scholar, Jerome, taught that these brothers were actually cousins, sons of Joseph’s brother or Mary’s sister. There is one additional factor that is of greatest importance in evaluating this issue. It seems highly unlikely that the doctrine of perpetual virginity would have gained acceptance in the early second century in view of the fact that these four so-called brothers became prominent movers in the early Church and one of them, James, became bishop of Jerusalem.

I understand in the Aramaic of Jesus' time, they used the same word for brother as they did for cousin.

Also, in the Old Testament a man was required to marry his brother's widow. if his brother died leaving his widow childless. Someone ask a Jewish friend suppose the man that died did not have a brother. The reply was that his nearest male relative would be considered his brother.

Therefore the Bible does not definitely prove or disprove that Mary had any other children.

I read recently on Snopes with regard to another matter something that is quite true: "One of the first issues we have to consider is that the Bible is thousands of years old, and the accounts have come to us through many oral retellings, re-copyings, printings, and translations. We have to be very careful about presenting a specific interpretation of a single English word or phrase from one particular version of the Bible as being "what the Bible actually says."

Also, why did Jesus on the cross give his mother Mary to the Apostle John to be his mother. It would seem if he had other brothers and sisters they would have looked after Mary.

Here you go..for future reference the original word is Brethren which means relative.

51 Have ye understood all these things? They say to him: Yes. 52 He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old. 53 And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

55 "His brethren"... These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? 57 And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

I made sure to leave the Catholic Churches infallible interpretation of the above reference so you could better understand.

Mary was, is and always shall be the Immaculate Conception and the only woman to have ever walked the Earth with out any sin on Her most pure and glorious soul.

St.Joseph is Her most chaste spouse and again pure and virginal, no children before his marriage to Mary, He was saving himself, to live a chaste life with out a wife until the Holy Ghost made sure this wonderfully great man looked after the Our Most Holy Virgin Mary, and protected Her and Our Lord and Savior.

Lucky for you the Catholic Church compiled the bible for you to wrongly interpret.

Pray the Rosary and receive the Sacraments for the Glory of God in the Highest!

Catholic encyclopedia link for your reference

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Stop cherry-picking and give us the entire article -- if you are able -- from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Without context, your selective exerpts do not lead to a credible conclusion of "denial of the theory". Surely a translator knows the importance of context?

Besides, Thomas Aquinas has already covered this ground.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#article3

I had to chuckle at the "making her a model for mothers of large families" part -- oh, how nicely that fits into stereotypes about Catholics, doesn't it? Kind of goes against something St. Ambrose wrote, though:

" Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son."

Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396)

Edit: My goodness, such accusations flying around here. "Catholics getting upset", "Catholics believing tradition and not the Bible", and more -- oh, do pipe down.

The only ones who are upset about this, and for that matter any other doctrines pertaining to Mary, are the ones who constantly hammer us with it. Why is it so important to you to tear these doctrines down, other than the old refrain of "it's not in the Bible!"? Is anyone requiring non-Catholics to agree with them? The way you all act, you'd think that the so-called "true church" went into stasis when the last apostle died and wasn't seen again until the invention of the printing press put hundreds of Bibles into circulation. (Of course, it would have been a neat trick to determine the Biblical canon from a state of suspended animation, so it looks like you'll have to grit your teeth and credit the Catholics for that at least.)

Citing "extra-Biblical" sources, such as the early Church fathers, is citing the very people who preserved the Christian faith, studied the Scriptures, and -- at least early on -- were taught by the Apostles themselves. Yet 20th- and 21st-century Bible readers are all hot under the collar about what the Catholic Church says about Mary because it's not neatly spelled out within the pages of their Bibles. I find that so amusing at times, given that some things which ARE very clearly spelled out in Scripture in literal terms somehow have been determined "symbolic". Or "Jesus didn't mean that." Says who? It's apparently more important to some people to reject anything the Church teaches, just for the sake of rejecting it.

Are you all thinking that if you work hard enough to "disprove" this -- or any other Catholic doctrine that you get upset about -- that the Church is going to go away in a sudden implosion of dogmatic disintegration? So somebody thinks they've "proven" Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Fine. I'll phone Rome with the news. It'll likely land on the top of the pile of "arguments against Marian doctrines" that have been tossed about for hundreds of years. What do you know -- the Church is still here, with doctrines intact.

Perhaps there may be better uses of one's time than constantly tilting at this. Just perhaps.

Have you ever noticed that the scripture DOESN'T say that His brothers and sisters are MARY'S children? I think this is a very important fact to consider. "Generations will call her blessed...", the Catholics are the only ones that I know of who pay so much attention to Mary, praise God. Mary must have been very important to give birth to God, Himself. Not one of us, that I know can be even remotely considered for such a task. I don't think Mary, herself, had other children. I believe the brothers of Jesus were from Joseph's other wives, although they are not mentioned. The culture then, was multiple wives, something we are very quick to condemn. God's ways are not our ways, all we can do is give Him praise, thanks and devotion.

Mr. Coptic, sorry to inform you, it seems someone forgot to tell you that Catholics don't base their teachings on the Bible. If you had known this, you perhaps wouldn't have wasted valuable time typing up your question. Trying to use "scriptures" to prove a point with Catholics is pointless.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this. :(

And this man's name is Greek & Coptic Translator so you know he's right. :) And also, even Josephus Flavius said in his Jewish Antiquities:

"as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. "

You don't want us to answer? Why, because you think you have the corner on the Coptic/Greek market? Silly.

You are free to believe as you wish.

Although James (many times referred to as "James, the brother of the Lord" and "James the least"), Joseph and Jude are named as brothers of Jesus, it is not too difficult to show that they were in fact children of Mary, wife of Cleophas (Clopas or Klopas). She is also named as sister of Mary , the mother of Jesus (John 19:25). (Clopas was also known as Alpheus. Alpheus and Clopas are translations of the Aramaic name Halphai).

These passages say that James was son of Alpheus, Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13. These passages show that James and Joseph were sons of Mary, wife of Cleophas, Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40.

Jude is referred to as son of James in Acts 1:13. However, the Greek custom at the time was to use a brother's name, instead of a father's name, if he was better known. (as you should know if you are indeed a scholar)

James, who later became the equivalent of Bishop of Jerusalem, was next to Peter, the most powerful apostle, so it would make sense to associate himself with James. In the epistle of Jude, attributed to this Jude, he calls himself brother of James. So it seems that Judas was also a son of Clopas

So these passages suggest that people actually named as part of Jesus' brethren, were children of Mary's sister and her husband Clopas.

One more thing, many times the Bible mentions Mary as mother of Jesus, but never as mother of Jesus, James, Simon, etc. In fact, it would actually say things like "Mary, mother of Jesus and Jesus' brethren were waiting for him. "

So we believe both the Bible and the Tradition of the Apostles.