Talk:Brothers of Jesus

Jesus' brothers. Jose.was NOT the father of Jesus, but yet he is mentioned as his father, meaning that they didn't have to be his "flesh" brothers..

Jesus' brothers. Joseph was not Jesus' father, but he is mentioned as such, meaning his "brothers" didn't have to be his "flesh" brothers. 2605:BA00:3208:924:6CF5:9C85:F216:7D88 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Relative to Jesus' brothers, which some say were his "blood" brothers; in the New Testament, Joseph is called "Jesus' father" even though he wasn't which could mean they weren't his "blood brothers. 2605:BA00:3208:924:6CF5:9C85:F216:7D88 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do Mark, John, and Paul reject the incarnation and divinity of Jesus?

According to John Painter this would be the position of Mark, John and Paul. I believe that for these types of statements attribution is necessary. I also do not understand why the user Achar Sva is very attached to the fact that this statement must be in the article, which has no relationship with the topic of "brothers of Jesus" Rafaelosornio. (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The failure of Mark, John and Paul to mention the virgin birth is an objective fact, not an opinion (read the Bible); and the very flimsy foundation for the virgin birth makes it most likely that the brethren of Jesus are exactly that. Now please stop reverting or I'll have to report you. Achar Sva (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You have not answered my question, we are talking about the incarnation and divinity of Jesus. Focus well on the subject please. The text says:

"Ebionites, who rejected the incarnation and divinity of Jesus; it is arguably presupposed the position also of Mark, John, and Paul"

We are focusing on the the incarnation and divinity of Jesus. Tell me what is the relationship with the fact that Mark, John and Paul do not believe in the incarnation and divinity of Jesus with the "brothers of Jesus"?

And a piece of advice, stop removing referenced text related to the topic and place texts not related to the topic like these that Mark, John and Paul did not believe in the divinity of Jesus or in his incarnation. Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please Rafael, learn to read. Achar Sva (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That happens because you don't put the full text. I will put the full text in the article --Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC).

The Gospels of Mark and John do not even mention the Nativity of Jesus. They also only briefly mention Jesus' unnamed mother, who is mostly irrelevant to their narratives.: "The Gospel of Mark names her once (Mark 6:3) and mentions Jesus' mother without naming her in Mark 3:31–32" ... "The Gospel of John refers to the mother of Jesus twice, but never mentions her name. She is first seen at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1–12). The second reference has her standing near the cross of Jesus together with Mary Magdalene, Mary of Clopas (or Cleophas), and her own sister (possibly the same as Mary of Clopas; the wording is semantically ambiguous), along with the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 19:25–26)." Neither gospels depicts the early life or ancestry of Jesus as significant. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Dimadick. This is the point: Mark, Paul and John have no mention of a supernatural aspect to the birth of Jesus, and this implies that they believed his birth was non-supernatural and his brothers accordingly full brothers. John did believe that Jesus was God incarnate, Mark did not (his Jesus is an extraordinary human, not a divine being), and Paul's position is unclear. Achar Sva (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What about John 1:1 & John 1:14 Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" - as I said above, John believed that Jesus was the Word incarnate. The Word, in turn is the divine Wisdom through which God created the world, as described in Genesis 1. That's not what Matthew and Luke and Mark believed. But our article is about the brethren of Jesus, not competing Christologies in the New Testament.Achar Sva (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"No Biblical Evidence"

The page states more than once that there is "no Biblical evidence" for Joseph being an older man and the Adelphoi being step siblings and/or cousins, but the most common scriptural evidence given by Catholics seems to be twofold. Firstly, Joseph died before the crucifixion, and secondly Jesus has to give Mary away to be taken care of by John, an Apostle who was not a blood relative. These two pieces are the most common given by Catholics, so in the interest of fairness the page should reflect this instead of the biased statement of "there is no Biblical evidence" Ptinkle99 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But the apostle Paul met Jesus's own brother. That throws a monkey wrench in that reasoning. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Lutheran beliefs

One editor insists that "Some Lutheran Churches have accepted" beliefs about non-brothers of Jesus. The only reference is a web page by ONE pastor from a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. This does not justify the statement that LCMS has a broad doctrine about this and does not have anything to do with other Lutheran Synods. This ia dubious statement and has no citation to support it. I have appropriately tagged the article.Pkgx (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church is not the only one that believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, with a church that believes in this it can be said "some Lutheran Churches" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• • OK, I accept your response to my question. I will remove the tags Pkgx (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability

@Anotherperson123: I can see the WP:RS (Segal) on Google Books. It confirms (WP:V) "of the same womb". Don't pretend it doesn't, we're not schoolchildren.

Pretending it does not say "of the same womb" only tarnishes your reputation as a Wikipedia editor. We take a dim view of such shenanigans.

Before you object: it does mean "brothers", but the literal translation is "of the same womb". The field "lit." is not meant for the meaning, but for the literal translation. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said that it doesn't say the words "of the same womb". I simply stated, as the source says, that this is the etymology of the word, rather than the strict literal definition. Here is a quote (emphasis mine):

“As her defiance of Creon continues into the stichomythy, her word homospanchmos some fifty lines late etymologically defines ‘brother’ as ‘of the same womb’ (511). Homospanchmos calls attention to the root meaning of the familiar word for ‘brother,’ adelphos, from a- (“same” equivalent to homo-) and delphys (“womb,” equivalent to splanchma).”

This clearly states that this is the etymological definition of the word, rather than its literal translation. Anotherperson123 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anotherperson123: True, but inessential. This is getting tedious, so please read the whole page. Your argument does not fly. Let me state it again: such behavior is not appreciated.

I.e. combating Segal's manifest view with a quote from the same page is not done. WP:NOTDUMB.

In case you still cannot figure out what I mean, see the quote provided for WP:V purposes at [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what a literal translation is, as it is nothing other than the meaning of a word apart from its context in a phrase or sentence. As such, literal translations translate word for word. It does not mean translating part-of-a-word for part-of-a-word. Anotherperson123 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anotherperson123: Now there are three WP:RS, including one which literally says "literally". Your POV does not trump three WP:RS, and more sources could be WP:CITED, since this is not a dubious matter, instead it is broadly accepted.

At Wikipedia there is some room for editorial discretion, but that room ceases to exist when the sources have spoken.

To end this dispute, I WP:CITED WP:RS which endorse both "of the same womb" and "brothers" as literal meanings of adelphoi.

So: which is true? Both are true! tgeorgescu (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Adelphopoiesis

Is there not also the simple possibility of brother-making ceremonies (adelphopoiesis, much like adoption) being responsible for these adelphoi? Under which they would be Jesus's siblings but wouldn't have been actual relatives. GlobalPeas (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

According to our article, that's a kind of medieval Christian thing, probably not known in 1st century AD Galilee and Judea. AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)