Jesus' siblings- the Catholic vs. Protestant Debate (Part Two)

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that Jesus had no actual siblings. Given the evidence I mentioned in the previous post, how did they arrive at this conclusion?

It is important to realize that many Catholics hold to the doctrine of the "assumption of the virgin." To these Catholics, Mary was not only a virgin when she had Jesus, but remained one her entire life. When her life ended, she was taken to Heaven instead of dying.

Many Protestants have pointed out the Bible only mentions Mary being a virgin when she had Jesus and not for her entire life. In fact, there is no verse in the Bible that indicates Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, a well-known New Testament scholar, shared two of the traditional arguments Catholics have used to make their case.

 "In the older of the two views, the "brothers" of Jesus were the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This made them, in effect, Jesus' stepbrothers," Ehrman said.

It is possible Joseph had children from a previous marriage and that Joseph's previous wife had died or the two had gotten a divorce. But if ALL of his children were from the previous marriage, why are these children not mentioned in the Gospel stories that describe Mary and Joseph's trip to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth?

It seems hard to believe that both Matthew and Luke would have left out such a fascinating story at the beginning of their respective Gospels. Surely they would have found it noteworthy to share Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem with at least six children! That would have been quite an interesting scene.

Given the fact that Mary had Jesus at a very young age, I find it hard to believe she would not have any more kids during her life. She was a virgin when she had Jesus, but obviously Jesus was divine and the others were not. The point of the birth narratives is Mary was a virgin when God chose her to have Jesus.

I think the much more likely scenario is that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary later gave birth to the other six (or more) siblings mentioned in Matthew and Mark's Gospels and these siblings were all younger than Jesus.

Another argument that was used to deny Jesus had siblings was used by the fourth-century church father, Jerome. Jerome was an ascetic, meaning he denied himself many pleasures, These pleasures included sex.

Since Jerome believed Christians should abstain from sex, the church father claimed that neither Mary nor Joseph had sex.

So who were these "brothers" of Jesus then? For Jerome and other Catholic thinkers, the brothers were actually cousins of Jesus.

Ehrman explains why that theory is problematic.

"The main problem with this view is that when the New Testament talks about Jesus' brothers, it uses the Greek word that literally refers to a male sibling. There is a different Greek word for cousin. This other word is not used of James and the others."

It should be noted that Catholics still hold James, the brother of Jesus in high respect. They simply do not view him as related to Jesus the way other Christians do. I have no problem with either of the two Catholic views on the subject, but do not believe they are historically accurate.

Since the Greek word for brother cannot be taken to mean cousin and since several different passages in the New Testament refer to Jesus' brother, or even all of his siblings, I see no reason to believe these brothers were cousins or even stepbrothers and stepsisters of Jesus. These were the earthly brothers and sisters of Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord.


NOTE: Dr. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He has some fascinating things to say about Early Christianity. Since he is not a Christian, I absolutely disagree with him on the subject of the Resurrection and divinity of Christ. However, he does make some great points at times about Early Christianity and his religious views do not mean he is any less qualified to address questions such as these.

Jesus' siblings- The Catholic vs. Protestant Debate (Part One)

Roman Catholics as a rule have long that Jesus Christ did not have any siblings. Protestants, on the other hand, typically claim the opposite.

Obviously, one of these groups has to be wrong and a look at our earliest available sources and the terminology of the New Testament should lead us to conclude He did in fact have siblings.

There are many reasons to conclude that Jesus had siblings, as these siblings are clearly mentioned in the Gospels in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:54-56. These passages reveal to us that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke each share a story about Jesus' mother and brothers coming to see Him.

Additionally, the apostle Paul indicates that he met with Cephas (Simon Peter) and James in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-20) within a few years of his conversion. In this passage, James is referred to as "the brother of the Lord."

While it is true Christians sometimes referred to each other as brothers and sisters, the meaning of the word is clear in Paul's epistle. Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord to distinguish him from Peter and the other apostles, who Paul notes were not in attendance. Since Peter and the other apostles were certainly "brothers" in the sense that they believed in Jesus, the word could not mean that only James was a believer in Jesus.

Therefore, Paul is referring to Jesus' actual brother, James, who was one of the "pillars" of the early church (Galatians, chapter 2).

Lastly, the historian Flavius Josephus almost certainly referred to James, the brother of Jesus. The historian noted in "Antiquities of the Jews" that James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ," and other men were wrongly put to death by stoning in 62 AD by the corrupt high priest, Ananus. The deaths of this group of men was met with anger and protest and Ananus was desposed of his position.

Based on this evidence, why would Catholics, or anyone for that matter, argue Jesus did not have siblings? Arguments against Jesus having siblings will be explored in the next post.

Constantine, the Gospels and Common Misconceptions (Part Two)

3. The practice of Holy Communion is extremely old

We all know about Jesus' Last Supper with his disciples, but apparently his early followers did not take long to begin the Holy Communion, also known as the Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians  11:23-34, written around 55 A.D., Paul described how the Christians at Corinth were not practicing the meal correctly. Apparently, some of the Christians didn't wait for the others to get there before they started eating the bread and drinking the wine... Paul basically told them to eat at home before coming to the meal if they were hungry and couldn't wait. This shows the practice was already in place within 25 years of Jesus' death and could have been in place much earlier. Clearly, it was a tradition important to Christians from a very early time.


4. Roman persecution of Christians was typically inconsistent before the beginning of the fourth century.

While it is undoubtedly true Christians dealt with persecution, imprisonment, torture and even death from an early period, the scope of this persecution varied greatly depending on the emperor in charge. Some emperors were fairly tolerant of Christianity and various other faiths. Others, such as the infamous Nero, were extremely cruel toward Christians. Generally, there were not any state-sponsored persecutions of Christians until the early fourth century, when the Emperors Diocletian and Galerius launched bloody persecutions of Christians.

Sadly, a good number of Christian places of worship and scriptures were destroyed by the persecutors. Some Christians unfortunately met a bloody faith if they refused to give up their religion. Thankfully, the Edict of Milan ordered tolerance of all faiths in the Empire and Emperor Constantine himself would come to openly favor the religion (though he never made it the "official" religion, as many have argued.

As as a rule, Roman emperors were somewhat tolerant of Christians before Diocletian and Galerius launched their violent persecutions of the Empire's Christians. To say Christians fought widespread persecution from Romans from the earliest days until Constantine's legalization of the faith is simply wrong. Many Pagan intellectuals ridiculed Christians about their faith and many frowned upon Christianity, but the extent of actual persecution is often exaggerated by Christians today.

In summary, times were very tough for Christians under some Roman emperors, but others pretty much let them worship as they wished. Christians also experienced some scattered mob violence at the hands of Jews, but this has also been exaggerated.

NOTE: Roman emperors who showed tolerance to Christians and other non-pagan religious groups did not extend this tolerance out of the kindness of their hearts. Tolerating religious views was a way in which emperors could keep peace in the Roman Empire.

Constantine, the Gospels and Common Misconceptions (Part One)

The study of Early Christianity led me to realize there were many facts about the faith that the public, both Christians and non-Christians, typically get wrong. This is a list of a few facts in particular that I would like my readers to know:

1. Constantine did NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Also known as Constantine the Great,  this Roman emperor would have a profound impact on the history of Western civilization. In the year 312, his troops were engaged in a war against Maxentius' forces. Despite his polytheistic views, Constantine sought divine Christian help to ensure victory in the war. Varying accounts survive of what exactly happened in this Battle of the Milvian Bridge, but Constantine believed after his troops emerged victorious that the Christian God had aided his side significantly in the victory.

 In February 313, emperors Constantine and Lincinius reached an agreement called the Edict of Milan. This agreement granted religious tolerance toward Christians and all other religious groups in the empire. The Edict ordered an end to the persecution of Christians and demanded that Christian churches and properties be returned to their Christian owners immediately. All wrongs committed against Christians before this victory had to be righted. He paid for the reconstruction of Christian churches destroyed by persecutors and even gave some jobs and benefits to Christian allies in the Empire.

Constantine remained a polytheist for many years following the Edict, but slowly began to show Christians "favor" by issuing coins with Christian symbols. Though coins with the symbol of the Sun god continued to be issued, the symbols of the labarum and cross began to pop up on Roman coins as well.  He openly declared favor for Christianity in 324, but it is unclear if he totally stopped his worship of other gods. He did get baptized shortly before his death in 337.

Nonetheless, it is a total myth that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire or banned other religions. Constantine died in 337 and Christianity was not declared the official religion of the Roman Empire until 380, by the corrupt Emperor Theodosius. Open favor is far different than an outright ban on the pagan religions, which were the majority religious group at the time. Christians were still very much a minority.

2. Mark's Gospel was written first

Matthew and Luke's Gospels were written next and John was the last Gospel to be written. Even though Matthew's Gospel is listed before the others when we crack open our Bibles, Mark's was easily written before any of the others. This is something virtually all religious scholars are in agreement about.

Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute (Part Two)

Part 2

The actual sins committed by the unnamed woman in Chapter 7 were never referred to as sexual sins. The woman very well could have broken some other laws instead. Perhaps, she failed to observe the Law of Moses in one way or another. Maybe she ground her grain on the Sabbath or stole some food. It is possible the sins were sexual, but that would be total guesswork.

Regardless, the important thing is Luke himself distinguishes Mary from the sinful woman in Chapter 7. The story I cited in part one tells us that seven "demons" had gone out of Mary Magdalene, but says nothing at all about Mary's sexuality or any other sins. It is hard to see, therefore, how Mary and the sinful woman are the same.

Some have also said that the woman Jesus saved from adultery in John's Gospel was Mary. It was not. John also specifies Mary by name in his Gospel and yet the woman in that scene was also unnamed. This was not Magdalene either.

Moreover, we have no record of any Christian referring to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute until the SIXTH century. All four of the Gospels in the New Testament were written before the end of the first century.

In the late sixth century, the famous Pope Gregory I shared his thoughts on Mary, which would prove influential in painting the follower of Jesus of Nazareth as a repentant prostitute: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?

It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts. What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner. She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears."

Only after Gregory's interpretation of Mary's past life do writings and paintings of Mary as a repentant prostitute begin to show up in the records. after this, there are some famous paintings of Mary dressed provocatively or even topless. With Gregory's comments, her reputation began to change.


It is clear, therefore, that only through a misunderstanding (or possibly, an intentional act) by Gregory did this view became the dominant one of Mary.

Christians today should discard this false view of Mary and remember her for what the Bible tells us she was- a devout follower of Jesus Christ who was present not only at his crucifixion, but at the Resurrection. She obviously truly cared about Jesus. Surely, a woman of such importance deserves to be portrayed as such.


NOTE: Many who subscribe to the view of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute do in fact believe she was a good woman after Jesus' forgiveness. I realize how such a story of redemption could appeal to some Christians. Even a woman of many sins could become a follower of Jesus and this could be used as inspiration by sinners today. However, this view is not historically accurate.

Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute (Part One)

     Prostitute, sinner, or devout follower of Jesus Christ? 

For well over a thousand years, the majority of Christians have viewed Mary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute. This was not, however, how early Christians viewed her. This depiction of Mary is also simply not historical. While many of us grew up hearing stories about Mary's sinful nature prior to Jesus' forgiveness of her sins, the Bible itself shows us a much more positive side of Mary.

Anyone who wants to claim that this follower of Jesus from the fishing town of Magdala was a prostitute or even a major sinner needs to cite convincing evidence. As it turns out, the Bible and history both present compelling counter-evidence.

The famous story in Chapter 7 of Luke's Gospel of the sinful woman has been cited as evidence by proponents of the view that Mary was a prostitute. In this story, an unnamed sinful woman "began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with ointment" (Luke 7:38).

The Pharisee present, Simon, was quick to judge the woman. In Luke 7:39, Simon criticized Jesus, and claimed that if Jesus were a prophet, "he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner."

Jesus goes on to tell Simon that while the woman is a sinner, her compassionate actions toward him were much greater than Simon's. He tells the woman that her sins are forgiven and "Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (Luke 7:48-50).

In the following chapter, Mary Magdalene is INTRODUCED to Luke's readers for the first time, along with some other women. The twelve (apostles) were with Jesus as were women, including Mary, Joanna, Susanna and many others. These women provided for Jesus (and presumably the apostles) out of their means.

Luke tells us that "seven demons had gone out"of Mary, though he didn't specify what he meant by that. Perhaps she had some sort of anxiety disorder that was referred to as a "demon." Many scholars today have argued a demon simply meant some sort of illness or ailment.

It seems very strange to think  Luke would introduce Mary to his readers in chapter 8 if the sinful woman in the previous chapter was the same woman. Why not introduce her in the previous chapter, which is far more detailed?

Since the sinful woman in the previous chapter is unnamed and therefore could have been any of the many women Jesus met during his ministry, it appears to be grasping at straws to suggest that Mary and the sinful woman are the same.

See my next post for the rest of the story.