they werent
2006-12-30 10:53:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
brother in Aramaic means "kinsman".
That was well understood by all catholics AND protestants until just recently.
Martin Luther said, "“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
John Calvin said, "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned...Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
Here is some food for thought: maybe we shouldn't be so confident in our own personal interpretations of the Bible. Let's leave that to theological and language experts. Think how many times the Bible has had to be translated (Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and THEN English) and there are not always perfect ways to translate from one language to another without changing the meaning. We MUST keep the original meaning of the Holy Bible, so let's trust what the experts say, not what we first think when we read our several-times-translated Bibles.
2006-12-30 19:19:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Jesus was the only child of the Virgin Mary. Any others , if there were any, might have been Joseph's by another marriage as he was older than Mary. Jesus took flesh from Mary, he was truly man and truly God. Could not have had any siblings.
2006-12-30 19:08:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Plato 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure who was the father of Jesus' brothers. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. www.equip.org
2006-12-30 18:56:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by jamesdkral 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but Jesus is the oldest among Mary's kids.
Jesus has 4 brothers an 2 sisters, all younger than him. (MAtthew 13:54-56)
Still Mary did not remain a virgin after all. =)
2006-12-30 18:54:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tomoyo K 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
We can be pretty sure that Jesus was the oldest son because he seems to have been in charge of the family after Joseph died (whenever that might have been). James only takes over once Jesus has passed on.
2006-12-30 19:12:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Vaughn 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
as long as the spiritual essence of the Jesus story is narrowed down to this type of discussion religion is alive and well as the religious directors want it to be. people are lost in analyzing the minutae of the written words, missing the spiritual meaning between the words, and no one benefits... the classes stay as they are and the leaders are still in control...
2006-12-30 19:02:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by larrydoyle52 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Men could have more than one wife back then too. Therefore the above assertion is not valid.
2006-12-30 20:36:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
He had no older brothers....you've probbaly been reading too many DaVinci Delusion books.
2006-12-30 18:54:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
And then because it wasnt so then why the question or are just thinking/dreaming aloud. HAPPY 2007
2006-12-30 18:57:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Cool Briz 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Jesus did have siblings but they were all younger than him.
2006-12-30 18:55:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by serephina 5
·
1⤊
0⤋