This heretical teaching is disproven.

[Soulx3]

Part I

In this thread, I show the heretical teaching that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings is false.

To preface, the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός'' (sing. adelphos/brother;pl. ἀδελφοί/adelphoi/brothers) has the following definitions: "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman/kinswoman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc. In the plural, it regularly refers to men and women.

In Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi/brothers). The context shows that its applicable definition is "kinsman, or relative." In Gal. 1:19, Paul calls a man named "James" Jesus's "ἀδελφός" (adelphos/brother), and the context shows that its applicable definition is "kinsman, or relative" as well. Therefore, we can deduce that the James's in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In the same verse, Paul indicates that James is one of the Twelve, and only one of the two named "James" of the twelve apostles, and their known siblings, correspond with Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 (see bold):

Apostle James the Great and Apostle John of Zebedee
(Matt. 4:21, Mk. 1:19;3:17;10:35, Lk. 5:10, Ac. 12:1-2)

Apostle James the Less, Apostle Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and Joseph of Alphaeus
(Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18;15:40, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13)

__________________________________________

The following scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies provide genealogical evidence to prove that the apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, and their siblings, were the brothers (kinsmen/relatives) of Jesus:

Two accounts of the same scene:
"Mary the mother of James" (Mk. 16:1)
"Mary the mother of James" (Lk. 24:10)

Three accounts of the same scene:
"Mary Magdalene, Mary (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)" (Matt. 27:56)

"Mary Magdalene, Mary (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)" (Mk. 15:40)

"His (Jesus's) Mother, His Mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (the mother of the James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene" (Jn. 19:25)


I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)

II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)

III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:

“James, the brother of the Lord, was "...the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)

"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)

"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph." (Bk. III, ch. 11)

"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)

"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)

"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

__________________________________________

Summary

The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively proves the following:
​

• Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 were the sons of Jesus's uncle, Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and his wife Mary of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus), and thus His kinsmen/relatives, specifically cousins​

​

• James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 were the apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas) of the Twelve​

​

• James in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 was also "James the Less" (Mk. 15:40), "James the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19), "James the Just," "James the bishop of Jerusalem" (Ac. 15:13-21), and "James the author of the Epistle of James" (Jas. 1)​

[Note: This in and of itself does not prove that Mary of Joseph was a perpetual virgin.]​

 

[Soulx3]

Part II

Below I address other scriptural verses believed to support that Joseph and Mary had children.

Matt. 1:25

In preceding verses 20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his Spouse the Virgin Who will conceive and give birth to a Son. In verse 25, he reiterates and reinforces this by referring to a specific period: pre-birth of the Messiah, a period of known chastity between Joseph and Mary that would dispel any belief that He was not begotten by the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin. [Note: This in and of itself does not indicate whether Joseph and Mary had or didn't have sexual intercourse after that period ended, and thus can't be used as proof that they had or didn't have a carnal married life, or children.]

Jn. 2:12

In this scene, Jesus's brothers were two of His four cousins, James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, and His disciples were Peter and Andrew, who later became two of His twelve elected apostles, and they accompanied Him and His Mother to Capernaum. Certain details aren't from any of the accounts of the Four Evangelists, as they are incomplete, but rather from The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God, an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.

Matt. 12:46, Mk. 3:31-32, Lk. 8:19-20

In this scene, Jesus's brothers who arrived with His Mother to speak with Him at Capernaum were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus. Joseph and Simon heard that Jesus had recently done carpentry work in Korazim for a widow whose husband had died, and they were angry at Him for earning money for her and her children, but not His own Mother, and were there to confront Him about it, but Jesus set them straight. Certain details aren't from any of the accounts of the Four Evangelists, as they are incomplete, but rather from The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God, an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.

Jn. 7:3-5;10

In this scene, Jesus's brothers were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus, who didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah, though they later came to believe this. Certain details aren't from any of the accounts of the Four Evangelists, as they are incomplete, but rather from The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God, an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.

Ac. 1:14

In this scene, Jesus's brothers were disciples, some of whom were the shepherds that visited Him the night of His birth. Certain details aren't from any of the accounts of the Four Evangelists, as they are incomplete, but rather from The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God, an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.

1 Cor. 9:5

In this scene, Jesus's brothers were the apostles James and Judas of Alphaeus, who were also His cousins. [Note: It's not a problem that they were mentioned separately from the rest of the apostles, because in the same verse Cephas (Peter) was also mentioned separately from the rest of the apostles, though he was still one of the apostles.]​

 

[Albion]

Yeh, that is one line of thought concerning this matter. Some Christians lean towards the other conclusion.

But two things about this issue are certain--

1) It's not been "proven" or "disproven," either way, and

2) It doesn't rise to the level of a "heresy" in any case.

 

[Soulx3]

Yeh, that is one line of thought concerning this matter. Some Christians lean towards the other conclusion. But two things about this issue are certain--

1) It's not been "proven" or "disproven," either way, and

Do you accept the evidence in the opening post that proves Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) weren't the sons of Joseph and Mary?

2) It doesn't rise to the level of a "heresy" in any case.

It is heresy because it's contrary to Church dogma and isn't generally accepted by Christians.

 

[Josiah]

[Note: This in and of itself does not prove that Mary of Joseph is a perpetual Virgin.]​

@Soulx3

... and that's the point. EVEN IF everything you copy/paste was true, it does NOTHING to prove the Catholic Dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It MAY weaken the very new "Evangelical" arguments against that (arguments always considered weak at best) but it does NOTHING to prove the PVM. This is your doctrine... the need for substantiation stands with the Catholic Church to prove it's true, not with others to show it is not.


Just for clarity, the vast majority of Protestants (all of them until perhaps 200-300 years ago) accept that the PVM is possible - even likely. Lutherans regard this as "pious opinion" - a view not shown as true OR false in the Bible (abiblical either way) BUT very widely and historically believed and taught.... a view one MAY hold but is not REQUIRED to hold. Until quite recently (a century ago) it was generally embraced by Lutherans but now I'd say most Lutherans are neutral - simply silent on the issue, not holding that it's true OR false. Much the same can be said of Reformed and Anglican Protestants.

The bold rejection of this as heretical and unbiblical is something first seen in the very radical Anabaptists and much more among modern "Evangelicals" especially in the US. It's not a common Protestant view.


Josiah (former Catholic, now Lutheran)



.


.

 

[Soulx3]

@Soulx3

... and that's the point. EVEN IF everything you copy/paste was true, it does NOTHING to prove the Catholic Dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It MAY weaken the very new "Evangelical" arguments against that (arguments always considered weak at best) but it does NOTHING to prove the PVM. This is your doctrine... the need for substantiation stands with the Catholic Church to prove it's true, not with others to show it is not.


Just for clarity, the vast majority of Protestants (all of them until perhaps 200-300 years ago) accept that the PVM is possible - even likely. Lutherans regard this as "pious opinion" - a view not shown as true OR false in the Bible (abiblical either way) BUT very widely and historically believed and taught.... a view one MAY hold but is not REQUIRED to hold. Until quite recently (a century ago) it was generally embraced by Lutherans but now I'd say most Lutherans are neutral - simply silent on the issue, not holding that it's true OR false. Much the same can be said of Reformed and Anglican Protestants.

The bold rejection of this as heretical and unbiblical is something first seen in the very radical Anabaptists and much more among modern "Evangelicals" especially in the US. It's not a common Protestant view.


Josiah (former Catholic, now Lutheran)

This thread isn't about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Soulx3]

@Josiah, do you accept the evidence in the opening post that proves Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) weren't the sons of Joseph and Mary?

 

[Albion]

It is heresy because it's contrary to Church dogma and isn't generally accepted by Christians.

It would be a heresy if it involved a denial of a Catholic dogma. This one isn't.

 

[Soulx3]

It would be a heresy if it involved a denial of a Catholic dogma. This one isn't.

There's more than one definition of the word "heresy." The teaching that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings is contrary to Church dogma, and isn't generally accepted by Christians, and thus is heresy.

heresy​

1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

By the way, do you accept the evidence in the opening post that proves Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) weren't the sons of Joseph and Mary?

 

[Albion]

There's more than one definition of the word "heresy". The teaching that the four brothers of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His half-siblings is contrary to Church dogma, and isn't generally accepted by Christians, and thus is heresy.

It's generally accepted by Catholics, but that doesn't make denial a heresy. There are over 200 declared dogmas that must be accepted under the pain of heresy, but what you were addressing isn't one of them. And what is "generally accepted" certainly doesn't determine it.

By the way, do you accept or reject the evidence in the opening post that proves Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) weren't the sons of Joseph and Mary?

It's reasonable, but there is other scriptural evidence that suggests the opposite conclusion.

Just sayin'

 

[Soulx3]

It's generally accepted by Catholics, but that doesn't make denial a heresy. There are over 200 declared dogmas that must be accepted under the pain of heresy, but what you were addressing isn't one of them. And what is "generally accepted" certainly doesn't determine it.

Refer back to post #9 for definitions of the word "heresy."

It's reasonable, but there is other scriptural evidence that suggests the opposite conclusion.

Just sayin'

What other scriptural evidence suggests the four men in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were the sons of Joseph and Mary?

 

[Albion]

Refer back to post #9 for definitions of the word "heresy."

Well, that's exactly what I was telling you--heresy is a rejection of church "dogma," which is a belief that has been formally identified by your church AS BEING a "must believe" concept.

It is not just anything that the majority of Catholics think of as true or proper.

 

[Soulx3]

Well, that's exactly what I was telling you--heresy is a rejection of church "dogma," which is a belief that has been formally identified by your church AS BEING a "must believe" concept.

It is not just anything that the majority of Catholics think of as true or proper.

Again, the teaching that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings is heresy because it's contrary to the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary: "an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma," and because it's a teaching that is false, and not generally accepted among Christians: "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards."

It's reasonable, but there is other scriptural evidence that suggests the opposite conclusion.

Just sayin'

What other scriptural evidence suggests that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were the sons of Joseph and Mary?

 

[Josiah]

There's more than one definition of the word "heresy." The teaching e the four brothers of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His half-siblings is contrary to Church dogma, and isn't generally accepted by Christians, and thus is heresy.

@Soulx3

Contrary only, exclusively, solely to YOUR individual church's DOGMA. It's "heresy" ONLY in one, individual, singular denomination - yours, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church (and it itself alone) considers it a wrong view (even heretical) because it itself alone considers this extremely rare and new view (not embraced by most Protestants) contradicts a view of it itself. "Heresy" in the RCC meaning "Disagrees with ME."

Well, by that definition (a view that conflicts with the view of some other denomination), then probably 90% of what the Catholic Church teaches is heresy, because at least one other denomination on the planet doesn't agree with it. It's a pretty ridiculous definition of "heresy' ("the view doesn't agree with ME").

Again, I agree, there is this very new, very rare view of some "Evangelical" type Protestants hold (not dogma anywhere) that Jesus had full biological siblings from Mary is one without biblical support. But then nor does the Catholic DOGMA that Mary had no sex ever. And several other dogmas found in the Catholic Church. Always fun to see pots calling the kettle black.



.

 

[Soulx3]

@Soulx3

Contrary only, exclusively, solely to YOUR individual church's DOGMA. It's "heresy" ONLY in one, individual, singular denomination - yours, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church (and it itself alone) considers it a wrong view (even heretical) because it itself alone considers this extremely rare and new view (not embraced by most Protestants) contradicts a view of it itself. "Heresy" in the RCC meaning "Disagrees with ME."

Well, by that definition (a view that conflicts with the view of some other denomination), then probably 90% of what the Catholic Church teaches is heresy, because at least one other denomination on the planet doesn't agree with it. It's a pretty ridiculous definition of "heresy' ("the view doesn't agree with ME").

Again, I agree, there is this very new, very rare view of some "Evangelical" type Protestants hold (not as dogma anywhere) that Jesus had HALF siblings and the 4 in Scripture are just that. A view NOT UNHEARD in the Catholic Church (In my Catholic days, I heard the view that these 4 men were children of Joseph from a previous marriage). And yeah, you're right, this view has no support in Scripture. But then nor does the Catholic DOGMA that Mary had no sex ever.

I'm glad you recognize it's unsupported in Scripture that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings.

 

[Albion]

Again, the teaching that Jesus's four brothers in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His half-siblings is heresy because it's contrary to the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary: "an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma."

If Mary could give birth to Jesus and remain a virgin, as the Catholic Church insists is the case, I would suppose that she could do the same with other of her children.

Another reason it's heresy is because it's a teaching that is false, and not generally accepted among Christians: "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards."

That's a common, casual, use of the word, hence it is one of several definitions given in dictionaries, but it's not what beliefs are dogmas according to the Catholic Church.

Earlier, you asked for scriptural evidence for the opposite view. The following link will probably be helpful to you--
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Soulx3]

That's a common, casual, use of the word, hence it is one of several definitions given in dictionaries, but it's not what beliefs are dogmas according to the Catholic Church.

You stated that the teaching/belief Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings "doesn't rise to the level of a 'heresy,'" but, again, it does for the following reasons: (I) it's contrary to the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary: "an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma," and (II) it's a teaching that is false, and not generally accepted among Christians: "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards." You should've said, "I stand corrected" after the first time I explained this to you.

Earlier, you asked for scriptural evidence for the opposite view. The following link will probably be helpful to you--
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)? | GotQuestions.org

You said that there was "other scriptural evidence" to suggest Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were the sons of Joseph and Mary. That's what I asked for. However, the article you linked references the same scriptural verses I do, and weakly concludes with, "The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings." In the opening post, I've presented a stronger case where those scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies collectively prove that they were the sons of Joseph's brother and his wife. Regarding Matt. 1:25, refer back to post #2.

 

[Albion]

You stated that the teaching of the four brothers of Jesus (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) being His half-siblings "doesn't rise to the level of a 'heresy,'" but, again, it does for the following reasons: (I) it's contrary to the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary: "an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma," and (II) it's a teaching that is false, and not generally accepted among Christians: "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards." You should've said, "I stand corrected" after the first time I explained this to you.

Except that your explanations did not hold up. I explained to you why there's no reason to think that the Virgin Birth applies (and you couldn't rebut that), and I also explained that a commonly held opinion doesn't make other opinions about the same issue automatically be heretical.

There is a process in your church, and that's what you are not willing to deal with.

You said that there was "other scriptural evidence" to suggest the four men in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were the sons of Joseph and Mary. That's what I asked for. However, the article you linked references the same scriptural verses I do, and weakly concludes with, "The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings."

So, it's just your own opinion that determines the matter, eh?

I started off thinking that you were intent upon promoting the Roman Catholic view of heresy, etc., but by now I see that the thread was started simply in order to air a personal POV.

In the opening post, I've presented a stronger case where those scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies collectively prove that they were the sons of Joseph's brother and his wife. Regarding Matt. 1:25, refer back to post #2.

If you think so.

 

[Soulx3]

Except that your explanations did not hold up.

They do, but your current inability to recognize that can't be helped, at least by me.

I explained to you why there's no reason to think that the Virgin Birth applies (and you couldn't rebut that)...

My having not yet addressed the following doesn't automatically mean an inability to refute:

If Mary could give birth to Jesus and remain a virgin, as the Catholic Church insists is the case, I would suppose that she could do the same with other of her children.

Can you clarify that?

So, it's just your own opinion that determines the matter, eh?

I started off thinking that you were promoting the Roman Catholic view of heresy, etc. but by now I see that the thread was started simply in order to air a personal conclusion.

What are you on about? In the opening post, scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies collectively prove that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were the sons of Joseph's brother and his wife, and thus the heretical teaching/belief that they were Jesus's half-siblings is disproven. You said that there was "other scriptural evidence" to suggest those four men were the sons of Joseph and Mary. That's what I asked you for. However, the article you linked references the same scriptural verses I do, and weakly concludes with, "The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings." Furthermore, you haven't attempted to address the early Christian testimonies. If/when you think you have something to bring to the table, feel free to do so.

 

[Josiah]

I'm glad you recognize it's unsupported in Scripture that the four brothers of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were His half-siblings.

Yes, I'm with most Protestants in that the new personal OPINION of a FEW Protestants that you shared is unsupported by Scripture. As is the far, far bigger issue of the DOGMA of the PVM in your church, the official DOGMA there. Both are equally unsubstantiated by Scripture. I find your posts here kinda funny, a rich and classic case of pot calling the kettle black.


.