Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
MagicJaxon

Jesus Older Brother

86 posts in this topic

Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest among them.[14] Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle, hence his identification by some with James, son of Alphaeus. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

While Christians believe that Jesus was, as the Son of God, born of a virgin, the relationship of James the Just to Jesus has been rendered difficult by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the belief that Mary's virginity continued even after Jesus' birth.

Now before any of you who do believe say that he's a half brother as some people believe. Wouldn't that have been a sin on Mary and Josephs part? If that's the case wouldn't the bible make mention of that?

Edited by MagicJaxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that culture, calling someone a brother didn't necessarily mean they were an actual brother. It was considered to be a mark of the highest respect and love, since the structure of society was so family-based.

Even if he was an actual brother, there's nothing in the text which states that he was older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't... technically.. all of his brothers be half brothers.. different father and all.. yeah.. Anyway.. His name might come first, so he may have been the oldest of Jesus' brothers, but that doesn't exactly make him older then Jesus, now does it? And as Magic said, "brother" was a term of respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest among them.[14] Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle, hence his identification by some with James, son of Alphaeus. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

While Christians believe that Jesus was, as the Son of God, born of a virgin, the relationship of James the Just to Jesus has been rendered difficult by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the belief that Mary's virginity continued even after Jesus' birth.

Now before any of you who do believe say that he's a half brother as some people believe. Wouldn't that have been a sin on Mary and Josephs part? If that's the case wouldn't the bible make mention of that?

I think outside of the Roman Catholic Church it is widely accepted that Jesus had siblings, the Catholics are the only ones who believe Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth. It is also accepted that James was Jesus's brother, however, since His mother was a virgin at His birth, all of Jesus's siblings would have been younger than Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the bible Jesus had 4 brothers.

Matthew 13:55

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Also says he had sisters but they are not named.

Matthew 13:56

Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Matthew 12:46

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Luke 8:19

Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

Mark 3:31

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

John 7:1–10

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. 2 But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your

...

Galatians 1:19

I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Luke 2:4–7

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Acts 1:14

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Source

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, before he married Mary. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: "But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was human born to a human woman, what is so strange that he may have brothers and sisters.

does anyone know what was the average size of a family back then, how many members was the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was human born to a human woman, what is so strange that he may have brothers and sisters.

does anyone know what was the average size of a family back then, how many members was the norm.

Child mortality was very high, families had as many children as they could, many of them died, and the ones who lived where needed to work in whatever job their fathers took. While the females where seen more commodities overall, having a daughter meant gaining land, livestock and grandsons, so every child was a blessing. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus had 10 siblings, maybe more. I just don't see a bit of evidence that any of them where older then him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right there is no "proof" that he was older. But there is only a hint that he might have been based on the fact that when the siblings where listed Jame's name always came first. No proof by far but it does suggest he was the oldest.

I admit it could just mean he's the oldest of his siblings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

Scroll down on the above link to "Relationship to Jesus".

Here's a Family tree.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...jesus/tree.html

Believe me, I take all this with a grain of salt though.

Edited by MagicJaxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that joseph was an older man who had been married before, and had a number of children. Mary was very young, and had not yet lain with her husband (this was then ,and still is a common practice in such cultures where a girl is married young but does not have sexual relations until older) and jesus was her first child. This makes sense of both her virginity issue and jesus' siblings. No one would be silly enough to claim that a woman who had previous children, could be a virgin at the birth of a subsequent child.

If this The idea that mary was a second wife to an older man, is a Roman Catholic claim, it is also independently a conclusion of many reputable bible scholars, and also of many non catholic churches. I must admit i cant remember the evidence for this, but it makes sense in a cultural context (and there is the conclusion that joseph died quite early, while mary was alive in jesus adult years, to suggest that joseph was considerably older than mary.)

I appreciate that certain elements of the catholic church maintain that mary was /is perpetually a virgin, miraculously kept that way; but that says more about the cult of mary, and the church's gradually evolved /adapted attitude to women, sex, and virginity, in its first few centuries of growth, than about the biblical story of the virgin birth.

Ie., it is not so much about the miracle of virgin birth, but resolving the dichotomy that jesus' mum must have been good, even perfect; yet the church saw women, especialy those who had sex, as sinners, and basically responsible for the fall ( through eves sexual temptation of adam to follow her in eating the apple)

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right there is no "proof" that he was older. But there is only a hint that he might have been based on the fact that when the siblings where listed Jame's name always came first. No proof by far but it does suggest he was the oldest.

I admit it could just mean he's the oldest of his siblings.

Why would you even start a thread like this? Are you trying to cast aspersions on the Holy Savior? At least you're not trying to make the case that Jesus never existed as some have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right there is no "proof" that he was older. But there is only a hint that he might have been based on the fact that when the siblings where listed Jame's name always came first. No proof by far but it does suggest he was the oldest.

I admit it could just mean he's the oldest of his siblings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

Scroll down on the above link to "Relationship to Jesus".

Here's a Family tree.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...jesus/tree.html

Believe me, I take all this with a grain of salt though.

Eh.... how else would they have said it?

Matthew 13:55

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

There's really no way to put Jesus' name first when you're talking about Jesus' brother.

Why would you even start a thread like this? Are you trying to cast aspersions on the Holy Savior? At least you're not trying to make the case that Jesus never existed as some have.

No need to get defensive, you have more to fear from me then him, I'm wiccan. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you even start a thread like this? Are you trying to cast aspersions on the Holy Savior? At least you're not trying to make the case that Jesus never existed as some have.

Because it's just one more reason to believe that the bible is full of a lot of BS in my opinion.

I believe he was a man who preached and had followers just like many do today.

I know there was a man named Jesus in that time. In fact Jesus (Yeshua, ) was a very common name. As was Joseph (Yose, Yosef) and Mary (Mariamme, Maria).

But all this stuff about being born to a Virgin mother and the son of god is plain fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your opinion and your right to believe such things. I happen to accept Jesus for who the bible claims he is. If it really meant nothing to you, you wouldn't start a thread like this. Perhaps in the back of your mind there is some doubt about it and you are aware that being wrong about Jesus could be a fatal error. IDK

Or maybe, like so many others, some religious person has done you wrong and now you want to poo poo the whole thing? Jesus has never done you wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is your opinion and your right to believe such things. I happen to accept Jesus for who the bible claims he is. If it really meant nothing to you, you wouldn't start a thread like this. Perhaps in the back of your mind there is some doubt about it and you are aware that being wrong about Jesus could be a fatal error. IDK

Or maybe, like so many others, some religious person has done you wrong and now you want to poo poo the whole thing? Jesus has never done you wrong.

Alright this is going from logical debate to something that reminds me of this old man who stands outside Walmart in the back of his truck reading passages from the bible through his PA system. I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is your opinion and your right to believe such things. I happen to accept Jesus for who the bible claims he is. If it really meant nothing to you, you wouldn't start a thread like this. Perhaps in the back of your mind there is some doubt about it and you are aware that being wrong about Jesus could be a fatal error. IDK

I bet you 10 dollars he'll be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is your opinion and your right to believe such things. I happen to accept Jesus for who the bible claims he is. If it really meant nothing to you, you wouldn't start a thread like this. Perhaps in the back of your mind there is some doubt about it and you are aware that being wrong about Jesus could be a fatal error. IDK

Or maybe, like so many others, some religious person has done you wrong and now you want to poo poo the whole thing? Jesus has never done you wrong.

Actually your last sentence is absolutely right. Many religious people have done me wrong. Every single one of them that told me I should believe or hold it against me for not believing has done me wrong. Here, I turn the pge and challenge believers to see my point of view (Just like religious people do quite often) and they view me as wrong.

Not long go I made this thread titled I started on a quest to believe in god. You might want to check that out to see where I'm coming from here.

Getting back to the subject of this thread. I found this link to be pretty interesting.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/...re/explore.html

Edited by MagicJaxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually your last sentence is absolutely right. Many religious people have done me wrong. Every single one of them that told me I should believe or hold it against me for not believing has done me wrong. Here, I turn the pge and challenge believers to see my point of view (Just like religious people do quite often) and they view me as wrong.

Not long go I made this thread titled I started on a quest to believe in god. You might want to check that out to see where I'm coming from here.

Getting back to the subject of this thread. I found this link to be pretty interesting.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/...re/explore.html

Yeah I remember seeing this on TV some time back.. I also remember the guy doing the research had claimed he found Noah's Arc a few years before. Not sure how to take it.. I mean if it IS real.. it proves nothing more then a man named Jesus really did exist.. not that he was of any divine lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh: ???? I don't understand the problem. Jesus' name is never mentioned in the list of his brothers to give comparative ages. While it might hint that James was the eldest of his four brothers, where is the hint that Jesus was younger than James????

I can't see it. Maybe you can help me and point it out, thanks.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that this a silly topic. The "virgin" reference is found only in Matthew, and nowhere else in the n.t. It is a misquote of Isaiah 7, anyway, since Isaiah does not use the word "virgin", and is making a prophecy about occurences in his own lifetime. Joseph is clearly mentioned elsewhere as Jesus's father. Either the teachings of Jesus are valid or not, period. The fact that the author (or fourth-century editor) of Matthew was trying to appeal to the pagan audience by making Jesus sound more like Heracles, or Perseus, are thus, totally irrelevant. If Jesus had ten or twelve olders, why would that negate his overall message about turning back to the Father? Isn't it even more miraculous that a mere mortal would be called by God to help return paople to God? Was Moses a God? Isaiah? Abraham?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started this topic I had just read (For the first time) about the argument that if Jesus had siblings then the "Virgin Marry" aspect of the bible is thrown out the window if you fallow the belief that she was a virgin till her dying day. I realize that not all religions believe she remained a virgin her entire life but for those that do believe that and he did in indeed have siblings then that aspect of their belief is wrong.

Then I read the argument that they are Jesus's half siblings from Joseph in previous relations. This, I felt a according to christian belief, is viewed as a sin.

I by no means think I'm any kind of expert. In all honesty this was new news to me so I posted about it.

Now that I think of it. If Marry remained a virgin after marrying Joseph that in a way could have been viewed as a sin. Afterall marriage is supposedly a creating of God. So I except the fact that Jesus was "First born" according to the bible.

Luke 2:7: And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Edited by MagicJaxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I read the argument that they are Jesus's half siblings from Joseph in previous relations. This, I felt a according to christian belief, is viewed as a sin.
Thanks for the clarification, MJ :tu:

Just to clarify this issue a little more, assuming this point of view is correct, the sinfulness of the act would depend on the manner of the previous relationships demise. If Joseph's previous wife died, then there would be no sin in remarriage. If he had handed over a certificate of divorce, then Hebrew culture said it was Ok, but Jesus elaborates and says that it also was wrong - in God's eyes then, this would have been sin.

However, the sinlessness or not of Joseph and Mary are not requirements for Jesus being the Messiah. Again it's primarily a Catholic belief, but they see Mary as eternally sinless, just as Jesus was. Most denominations do not hold this view. Both Mary and Joseph were as sinful as you or I. That is the nature of humanity. Even if Joseph had a sinful marriage/divorce before marrying Mary, there is nothing in that to deny who Jesus was.

Though on a personal level, I believe that Joseph was married for the first time here and his brothers and sisters are literally Joseph and Mary's siblings. There is no need to muddy the waters with talk of half-brothers or the more generic "we're all brothers" rationalisation (yes, that would be a rationalisation). Jesus was the first of the children, born to a virgin. After this, Joseph and Mary had other children together. There is nothing wrong with this.

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the clarification, MJ :tu:

Just to clarify this issue a little more, assuming this point of view is correct, the sinfulness of the act would depend on the manner of the previous relationships demise. If Joseph's previous wife died, then there would be no sin in remarriage. If he had handed over a certificate of divorce, then Hebrew culture said it was Ok, but Jesus elaborates and says that it also was wrong - in God's eyes then, this would have been sin.

However, the sinlessness or not of Joseph and Mary are not requirements for Jesus being the Messiah. Again it's primarily a Catholic belief, but they see Mary as eternally sinless, just as Jesus was. Most denominations do not hold this view. Both Mary and Joseph were as sinful as you or I. That is the nature of humanity. Even if Joseph had a sinful marriage/divorce before marrying Mary, there is nothing in that to deny who Jesus was.

Though on a personal level, I believe that Joseph was married for the first time here and his brothers and sisters are literally Joseph and Mary's siblings. There is no need to muddy the waters with talk of half-brothers or the more generic "we're all brothers" rationalisation (yes, that would be a rationalisation). Jesus was the first of the children, born to a virgin. After this, Joseph and Mary had other children together. There is nothing wrong with this.

Regards,

The only thing really wrong is that there was no prophecy about a virgin bearing children, just a clumsy attempt to retrofit the n.t. in the fourth century to appeal to the pagan audience the n.t. was written for, as no Jews knew of a non-existent virgin birth prophecy. We have been over this nonsense before. Yes, Mary was an almah, but certainly not a Betulah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing really wrong is that there was no prophecy about a virgin bearing children, just a clumsy attempt to retrofit the n.t. in the fourth century to appeal to the pagan audience the n.t. was written for, as no Jews knew of a non-existent virgin birth prophecy. We have been over this nonsense before. Yes, Mary was an almah, but certainly not a Betulah.
4th Century, lol. Just had to laugh at that one :lol:

I know you've said it before, and of course you are entitled to your opinion. But I think the FACT that these texts existed in the 1st Century AD kind of kills that view and requires you to somehow update your 4th-Century claims. But thanks for the input. As a general comment on this topic, I will admit that I don't have enough knowledge of Hebrew to make an informed decision as to whether there was an actual prophecy in Isaiah. As I said once before, I am happy to say to this issue, "I don't know". But if there were not, that does not in itself deny a virgin birth in the New Testament. Certainly there are repercussions if it is not so (Matthew does quote that Isaiah passage, for example - and that definitely needs addressing), but as a concept, there is no reason why Jesus could not have been born from a literal virgin.

Regardless though, as I said before - 4th Century is just laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4th Century, lol. Just had to laugh at that one :lol:

I know you've said it before, and of course you are entitled to your opinion. But I think the FACT that these texts existed in the 1st Century AD kind of kills that view and requires you to somehow update your 4th-Century claims. But thanks for the input. As a general comment on this topic, I will admit that I don't have enough knowledge of Hebrew to make an informed decision as to whether there was an actual prophecy in Isaiah. As I said once before, I am happy to say to this issue, "I don't know". But if there were not, that does not in itself deny a virgin birth in the New Testament. Certainly there are repercussions if it is not so (Matthew does quote that Isaiah passage, for example - and that definitely needs addressing), but as a concept, there is no reason why Jesus could not have been born from a literal virgin.

Regardless though, as I said before - 4th Century is just laughable.

Why is it laughable that the author (or editor) of Matthew made a mistake? The section of the Septuagint Greek translation of the Tanach containing Isaiah was written long after Jesus was dead. Quoting it in Matthew is clearly an anachronism. A Jewish writer, writing shortly after Jesus's death, would have known what "almah" meant, and would not have needed to rely on a Greek translation of the Nevi'im, written later on, any way. Almah, to review, is based on the hebrew root alef lamed mem, which refers to youth. There is a male counterpart, "elem" which simply means a youth. "Betulah", based on Beth Lamed Heh, is rooted in meaning in the hymen, and clearly refers to a virgin. Sigh! The writer of Isaiah surely knew the difference, especially as the prophecy referred to his own wife being pregnant, as a prophecy for his king, and had nothing to do with the messiah. Besides, neither the other gospel writers, nor "Paul" seem to know about the Heraclean virgin birth. I find it mind-boggling that you guys can't accept that the author of Matthew simply made an error. He was not a god. Just accept it. This is similiar to the kjv typo that has thusands of people believing that Moses parted the Red Sea, instead of the Sea of Reeds (a one-letter error).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linked-image

The Brother of Jesus By Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner

http://books.google.com/books?id=YS_d3a-wx...rother+of+Jesus

linked-image

James the Brother of Jesus By Robert H. Eisenman

http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-...253&sr=11-1

MK,

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.