[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Matthew 12:46-47
Mark 3:31-32; 6:3
Luke 8:19-20
John 2:12; 7:3-5
Acts 1:14
1 Corinthians 9:5
Galatians 1:19

I am not disputing the fact they were called brothers, however look through the new testament and see how many times Jesus when addressing the apostles calls them brother. Does the word brother mean just that or does it mean relative in part of an extended family, like half brother or even cousin. (If Joseph had died before Jesus was able to look after his mother under Mosaic Law relatives were duty bound to take in Jesus and Mary and look after them as their own). Or even advocates of the same belief/social group.

Also take a peep at Matt 27:56 or Mark 6:3 and 15:40 for James and Joses.


There is no proof they were sons of Joseph and Mary. It is a belief contrary to the RC, Eastern Orthodox, Muslim and lots of Protestant Faiths. (Luther, Calvin even Wesley wrote in the defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary).

The arguement you are following is thus, it calls them brother so they must have been his brothers. Given you are using the new testament as evidence. The New Testament was gathered and put together, then guarded by the early christian church, what was to become the Catholic Church, which disputes the fact of a bloodline from Joseph and Mary. Are you saying they got these writings and established a belief that argues counter to the books on which it is based.

Did they change the Gospels during transcription (either by redaction or deliberately) to remove any history of his blood family? If so doesnt that undermine belief in the Gospels as a whole?