What About Jesus's "Brothers?" w/ William Albrecht & Fr. Christiaan Kappas 

Very good point.

Excellent point! I always try to bring this up too!

Who was John? In John 19:25, Jesus' mother is identified as having a sister. Is there a way of knowing who she is? Wouldn't John, have known this. After all, he was charged by Jesus to look after his own mother after he died and ascended to heaven. Surely, if he didn't know her already, he would have at least met her, because of the relationship Jesus would have had with her as his aunt. If we compare all of the crucifixion passages where the women who stood in front of the cross are discussed, we find the following: John Matthew Mark Mary, the mother of Jesus Mary, the wife of Mary the mother of James and Joseph Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses Clopas Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene Mary's sister the mother of the sons of Zebedee Salome Only John mentions Mary, the mother of Jesus. All 3 gospels mention Mary Magdalene. Both Matthew and Mark mention that a certain James and Joseph had a mother who was called Mary. John doesn't say this, but he does mention a certain Mary who was married to a man named Clopas. Now if you look at the identity of these two named sons of the Mary, we discover that they are also named as being the sons of Alphaeus in Luke 20, Acts 1, and Mark 3. Now in John, it seems that the man in the above video attributed the identity of Mary, the wife of Clopas (James and Joseph (Joses) as being the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. However, I would argue that that is incorrect, but that they are actually two different women. I believe that you will see why below. You see, there is another woman who is also mentioned, and she is Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee. I would argue that she is the sister of Mary and Jesus' aunt, thereby making her sons, James and John, his cousins. If you're not convinced about the matter, there is more to say about the matter. In Acts 1:12-14, when the disciples returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives to the upper room to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the Holy Spirit which they would have on Pentecost Sunday, Luke provides a list of who was present in that consecrated time of prayer. Present in that upper room were the 11 remaining apostles (Judas Iscariot had hung himself), who were all named, and among them were the 3 alleged "cousins" of Jesus: James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, who is also known as Thaddaeus in the Matthew and Mark accounts of the choosing of the 12 apostles of Jesus. So if you add Joseph to the list, you have all four of Jesus' "cousins". Three of them were designated as apostles. Now, what is interesting to note is that in that list of people present in the upper room, Mary the mother of Jesus, and his "brothers" are also mentioned. The question that is automatically raised is who were these brothers (or cousins) of Jesus if the 3 named apostles are the aforementioned "cousins" of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3-4? The only conclusion that you can come to is that the 3 named apostles including Joseph, though they happen to have been given the same names, since they were all very common names at the time, are not the same people that are mentioned as being the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3-4 and also in Matthew 13:55-56. It stands to reason that they were not the same people because John, the apostle, in John 7:5 stated that his brothers at this moment in time didn't believe in Jesus. They didn't begin to believe in him until after the resurrection when he personally revealed himself to James, whom Paul describes as the Lord's brother in Galatians 1:19, and probably to the rest of them as well - see 1 Corinthians 15:6-7. Whereas the 3 men who had the same names, and who had become apostles of Jesus, obviously did believe in him when they started to follow him. Why did Jesus choose him to look after his own mother? Why didn’t he let things run their natural course, namely according to cultural expectations that the next oldest brother would be the one who would be responsible for looking after his own widowed mother once she was left on her own due to her oldest son’s death? It stands to reason that Jesus chose John, the disciple whom Jesus loved to look after his own mother other than the next unbelieving brother in line, James. John, who had reclined against Jesus' chest at the Last Supper, and who was his cousin was the one who had the closest relationship with Jesus of all of the apostles. So, is there any other reason other than the one I have just raised, as to why Jesus would make such a dismissive comment regarding his brothers in the following passage of Scripture, other than the most natural one, namely that they did not believe he was the Messiah, and consequentially they were not doing his Father’s will and follow him? Jesus, however, knew that he could really count on John to look after her because of his close relationship with him. While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 [Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.”] 48 But [Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49 And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold: My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)

​@@robertoberuffi1394 well said. But they just choose to be blind...or rather "debate". The purpose of debate should be to find the truth, not just win.

Same thing here in Indonesia

The Israelites did the same over 2000 years ago

Same thing in America.

Then what you call your brother

@@wesleyreginald3878 "Brother"

Keep in mind this doesn't make any sense in a rhyming sort of way in ancient Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic.

You obviously have never lived in a ME family. Families live in one home, not as nuclear families it is necessary to differentiate between brothers and cousins.

@@jeffscully1347 So because it doesn't rhyme it must therefore be false.

Well, you do have to do quite a bit of mental qymnastics to twist the scripture to fit that specific Dogma. I'm sure that would be exhausting.

Especially if certain germane arguments are never answered

May I ask any protestants in this post, which one or combination do you believe about The Blessed Mother? Ebionism: Joseph was the physical father of Christ. Jesus was just a holy man. Helvidianism: Mary was a virgin but after Christ her and Joseph had relations. Valentinianism: The Holy Spirit deposited Jesus body and soul into Mary's body without her contributing to Christ. Just a vessel, just a surrogate. Nestorianism: Jesus is two persons and Mary is only mother of the human Jesus.

Yes but we must

@@julieevanish3601 That’s not what Valentinianism is. It’s a polytheistic gnostic heresy.

And that’s not even the word Jesus uses in Mark 6:4 in response to the question in Mark 6:3 as said in this video. Syngeneusin

Syggeneis can be your parents, blood brothers and sisters etc

Because he didn't give his mother to John.

Exactly what I was going to comment, but you beat me to it. Bravo and Amen

It wasn't just a Jewish tradition, it was the law. If there had been any other brothers, Jesus wouldn't have even mentioned it to John and Mary. There would have been no need.

I know it may be very rude to say about this. The New Testament says Jesus had about five or six siblings. If so were they actual siblings of Jesus Christ or were they followers. Is Mary the actual real mother of these siblings of Christ. Plus is Joseph, Mary's husband the real father. Joseph is almost never mentioned in the gospels after the birth of Christ and the family's eventual return to Nazareth

@@michaelverbakel7632 .they say Joseph was much older the Mary ,she around 14 years old , Joseph in his early 30's ,allot of children , I guest when Jesus was in the Temple Joseph and Mary had to cart 6to 8 kids with them , also their were 4 to six Mary's in the bible Mark 15:40at the cross were Mary Magdalene Mary of the younger James and of Jose and Salome (Simon) ,also would God allowed the Divine Jesus DNA and blood be contaminated in other children and be buried in the ground , did not Mary rise body into heaven .

St. Joseph was a righteous Jew. See how they treated the Ark of old. You really think he would have the least thought of touching Mary in that way after God had made her womb his own living Ark? If you carefully read Mathew's account, this was the very reason he wanted to quietly divorce Mary. Not because he thought she cheated, but because "she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit." That last part is crucial! Joseph knew exactly how it was that Mary was pregnant. He realized something divine was happening with her and, just like David was terrified to approach the Ark of Old, Joseph wanted to get away completely from Our Lady. That's why the angel had to tell him he need not fear, that he was part of the plan, too! The protector of both Mary and her son. If you read about the Ark in the Old Testament, you'll realize that no devout Jew would've dared approach Mary for sex after the incarnation. Just like YOU wouldn't have sex with your wife inside a church or something, so no Jew would've touched a dwelling place of God, overshadowed by God himself for himself. This is how she would've appeared to any good Jew who knew what was happening in her, and Joseph wasn't just a run of the mill "good Jew" but a man distinguished by scripture as just/righteous/saintly.

The longer video discusses all the points and objections in detail, including your remarks.

My Aunt Rose didn't have any children until the day she died. Does that mean she had children after she died? Jesus told us that He will be with us until the end of the Age. Does that mean He'll leave us after the end of the Age?

Ancient greek is different than modern greek

remember every thing was not written in the bible , Jerome wrote what he found, allot of books were destroyed by the Romans , but the early fathers knew that Mary had no other children , St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were taught by John the Apostle and took care of Jesus's mother .

Brother brethren Greek adelphos Brothers plural adelphoi Cousin anepsios While true in the Bible they could of used cousin anepsios, that would only apply if all were cousins to Jesus, on the other hand adelphoi, adelphos could of been used to include brother, friend, cousin, co workers much like we use it today at church too. Sorry buddy I forgot where I took my notes from. Another great argument, ask them to show you from scripture where it says Mary had other children, just one verse that she was pregnant. Zero nada Matthew 2:11-19 when they run to Egypt nothing, when they return from Egypt to Israel nothing, When Jesus gets lost in the temple you see the holy family at age 12 and you still don’t read about any brothers. Best of luck God bless

They actually cover that in the longer video. That expression is taken from the Book of Numbers, and does not mean uterine brothers or sisters. You’ll have to watch the longer video for the explanation.

They covered it in the full video and they just say that Christ and his family were fulfilling the laws of Moses and taking in their relatives and helping them out.

Their book is available on Amazon. The Definitive Guide for Solving Biblical Questions About Mary: Mary Among the Evangelists by Fr. Christiaan Kappes and William Albrecht The link to the book is in the description of the original video.

@@housecry Thank you!!

Why does it matter to protestants that she wasnt a perpetual virgin? Why do they say she was just like another woman when scripture clearly says the opposite?

@@chuckHart70 why does it matter at all? What does it mean? What would it mean if she was found to have other children? I'm not hostile to it, just curious

@@petemaguire8677 Because it devalues The Blessed Virgin, there are various reasons why but one that comes to mind right now is much like how celibacy is superior, so too is the Birth of The Son of God.

@@TheKaiwind thanks for that, yes that makes sense. I guess the rub for me is that Joseph took her as his wife which would make it a celibate marriage? Is that right?

@@TheKaiwind Where does it say that celibacy is superior?

You using a false religion has back up...

Muslims also say she’s the “Holy Spirit”.

I wouldn't go with them being the mother of Josephs children, bear in mind I am Orthodox. Because it would be impossible for Jesus to give His mother into Johns care at the cross if she had children who were obligated under jewish law to care for her, even if they rejected Jesus as a teacher. Jesus is still fully man and fully God, and cares for His mother according to the law because being man He eternally keeps the law.

Because of the multiple verses that refer to "Jesus's brothers and sisters". If you read the Bible and see these verses your first impression is obvious: Jesus had brothers and sisters. It takes a deep dive interpretation to come to the conclusion that He didn't have any siblings. I'm currently in this deep dive.

@@jasminemariedarling But you also need to understand the Greek language in which the NT was written in, where the word "adelphos" has multiple meanings, not just biological brother, even though that is the meaning most meant in Scripture.

@@jzak5723 And what about sister

@@jasminemariedarling The Greek word for sister is not limited to only biological, despite what Protestant's routinely claim. Look at James 2:15 and 1 Cor. 7:15 where the Greek word "adelphe" means someone other than a sibling.

House also refers to ones family. "House" stark, if you want a GoT example. Idr actual historical houses off the top of my head.

My dude, you're telling everybody you speak like an English-speaking American without saying you speak like an English-speaking American. Believe It or not, but nobody in the Ancient World spoke English.

@@thepalegalilean your right modern English isn't all that old maybe 200 to 300 years (e), even here in England, spoken and written English was different just 400 years ago in Shakespeare's day they spoke differently to modern English at one time queen was spelt qvene and written was spelt wrytten and so forth, who uses words like on the morrow these days, it was changed to tomorrow when modern English developed, and it's a collection of different words from Scandinavia (the Vikings) latin from Italy, France, Germany, and other languages that has become modern English

The reason that Mary's virginity is of importance, Is because her virginity is what is the foundation for different doctrines the Church espouses. Also, there are prots so obsessed with sex that they can't conceive of a human relationship that transcends carnal desire.

It’s responding to Protestants

@@CPATuttle the way I understand it... protestants believe in the virgin birth (they say Jesus is the Son of God via the holy spirit) but protestants don't believe Mary stayed a virgin throughout the remainder of her life. My question is: why does that matter whether she did or didn't ? Does that make sense? Honest question. I'm just trying to understand. Thanks

@@AnHebrewChild Because Protestants are protesting the Catholic Church over this issue and others. Trying to take people out of the Catholic Church and into theirs. So therefore Catholics have to defend this doctrine. Additionally the original importance of Mary as a pledged perpetual virgin is important to support the virgin birth of Jesus. Obviously if someone has many kids with her husband. Why would anyone think one of them happened without sex but through God as the father

@@CPATuttle thank you for your explanation.

To care for her and serve God.

The Church does not state that consumption is required for a marriage.

Joseph and Mary were not Catholic while they were married. The Catholic Church wasn't established until after Joseph had died.

Do you think the Jews of their time waited until they’d had more children before they called the first one “firstborn?” I have a funny feeling every first child was called “firstborn” upon birth, and maybe all the way through life, even if in the end they were an only child. But you can check on what was the conventional way to refer to an only child at the time. In my opinion, “first” doesn’t imply the certainty of there being a second. The implications inherent in the English way of saying it might have nothing to do with the ancient Hebrew way.

And Joseph was older than Mary (a LOT older) and had other children by his first wife. "Until" in Greek means up to the point, but not beyond necessarily. 2 Samuel 6:23- “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” Saul had children with his wife after she died? Colossians 1:15-21 “And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

"I am with you always, until the end of the age." So Jesus won't be with us after the end of the age? We need to learn to stop using modern 21st century projections onto the meaning of words

Heggesipius, Papias, Hippolytus all second century writings say they are son’s of Clophus. They’d all have to be wrong. As well the the Protoevangelium of James about Mary’s perpetual virginity. That’s 4 sources. That would all have to be wrong. Papias, Heggesipius, Hippolytus all very credible.. The three apostles grouped together are the same men as the brother of Jesus. James son of Alpheus, Simon, Jude

@@CPATuttle I will look into it more.

If you assume Protestantism it certainly doesn't make sense. But if you assume Christianity as it has historically understood itself to be, It makes perfect sense.

The new ark of the covenant which is Mary can never be tainted ( just like the old one)so it makes perfect sense for Our Lady to be a perpetual virgin. Even Luther believed this.

Knowing that the Holy Spirit had been there before him, would a man really want to go where only God had been? Mary’s body was a temple for God himself, more literally than any body had ever been or would ever be. I would think a devout man would avoid intimacy with her out of utmost respect. Can you imagine sharing a woman’s body with God himself? I don’t think Joseph could, either. In Jewish tradition, I think it’s true that holy things were never devoted to ordinary uses. So once her womb became home to the holiest treasure of all, how could it ever be used for something less holy? It would be like demoting the Ark of the Covenant to a regular cupboard, since it obviously had doors and a shelf where bowls could fit.

it would be a good, beautiful, and holy thing for Mary and Joseph to have sex with each other. They were married to each other and sex was literally created by God to be shared between a husband and wife. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches married couples not to deprive each other of sex (1 Cor 7:5)

@@Foffs_Musings Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, do you remember what happened when someone touched the old Ark? Dr Brant Pitre professor of ancient judaism discusses this in one of his books. It was accepted jewish practice in first century that some married men/women were voluntarily celibate, something they both agreed to.

Well there it is Kenneth says so. Forget church history...writings of early Christians .... heck dont listen to Luther. Thanks for clearing it all up.

@@chuckHart70 that’s funny because I’m my comment I specifically said Greek linguistic scholars is where I get my information from on how they translate those words. But I guess you did not want to here that part. And most of what you put in your comments all those writings prove exactly what I was saying. Thanks for that.

@@kennethanderson8770 So are you saying that all "Greek linguistic scholars" say this, or only the ones you think prove your point of view? Clearly it can't be ALL "Greek linguistic scholars," because most of them don't prove your point of view.

@@jeffscully1347 no about 90 percent agree with me. Do not all because Catholic scholars will argue their point as inaccurate as it is to be idolatrous to Mary. Catholics idolize Mary so much that her having other kids messes with that view. When as a human knowing she was just a human God used in an amazing way her having other kids is not s big deal to Protestants.

@kennethanderson8770 you're hilarious. NOBODY believed Protestant theology for the first 1,500 years. There weren't any credible sources who weren't heretics who believed that nonsense you believ..

Then why did Jesus entrust Mary to John (not biologically related) at His death? If Mary had other children, why didn't one of them care for her?

Well the problem with this is you can't name a brother of Christ without naming a cousin. Also besides all this the same word used for his brethren is used throughout all the Pauline epistles and following that logic... it would be fair to assume that everyone St. Paul wrote to would be blood related.... including to him and Timothy. The word for brother in Greek is used 349 times in the new testament and the definition is literally or figuratively near or remote. It's in every gospel and every epistle and in Acts and Revelation. It's used in 1 Cor 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother. This word brother is the same used in Mathew 13 that you pointed out. But is Sosthenes Paul's blood brother? No it's the same exact word used for brother everytime it's used in the rest of Corinthians and every epistle following it. And as a side note. It would have been his blood brothers responsibility to look after the Blessed mother not St. John's. That's whole different discussion but in simple natural terms that would have been what would have happened if our Lady indeed had other physical offspring. Just food for thought no ill will intended

@@adamjackson8664 why do you suppose Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John rather than his "brothers", as the Bible calls them?

@@erikrohr4396 he didn't have blood brothers to do so. Pretty simple Joseph was gone she was a widower and just watched her Son get murdered. He still had to make arrangements for her safe keeping as her only child. I'll return the questions with the same and a additional question. He knew what was going down. Why did he wait to make those arrangements in the last minutes of his life from the cross and why did John find it fitting to include it. Obviously inspired to do so.... but why did God find it fitting to give such a small detail during the greater act of love in all human history

May I ask any protestants in this post, which one or combination do you believe about The Blessed Mother? Ebionism: Joseph was the physical father of Christ. Jesus was just a holy man. Helvidianism: Mary was a virgin but after Christ her and Joseph had relations. Valentinianism: The Holy Spirit deposited Jesus body and soul into Mary's body without her contributing to Christ. Just a vessel, just a surrogate. Nestorianism: Jesus is two persons and Mary is only mother of the human Jesus.

Sorry, brother, but is more like is not late for you to understand this is what the verses actually mean, that this is the correct teaching of them in true Christianity since Jesus founded His church, while on the other hand, your own heresy [whatever denomination it is] is the one twisting their meaning and fighting against God's word by calling the original sacred texts "unreasonable explanations". These are the teachings of the actual stuff that is there written in the original texts, with the proper context of the times they were written, with the proper explanation of the intent of those words as they were used [historical and etymological], presented with proper study. Saying otherwise is just blasphemous. The moment you give a different meaning to what it is actually written in the Bible [like adelphos, syngeneusin, etc.] and want to twist it to fit your own wicked anti-Catholic narrative, is the moment you should realize who is of the light and truth, and who of the darkness and lies. You are not concerned about facts, nor you care about what is actually written in the original texts, you only care about finding excuses to fight against Catholicism [and you know that's the truth, otherwise you would simply accept the actual meaning and teachings of the texts, as they have been already presented to you, but you want to deny them and refuse to listen].

This is what the Earliest Catholics believed and taught. They were the ones closest to the situation and the time. There was never any question or doubt until a couple hundred years ago when Protestants realized they were losing the argument.

Submit To The Catholic Church

@@dwightschrute900 No thank you. I am submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ and the inerrant, preserved, inspired word of God. AV King James Bible. Christ Jesus is my Saviour, not the catholic church my friend.

@@Rest-in-JesusChrist7788 Why the King James Bible?

I'd rather submit to the Church that gives the Bible its authority.

@@JP2GiannaT If you're saved, then you are indwelt & sealed with the Holy Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit guides the believer into all truth. God preserved His perfect word of truth for the common man. I don't need "the church" to tell me what to do or believe. I am in Christ Jesus and He is the only mediator between God and men. He tells me what & how to live my life through His word of truth... Trust, rely, & depend on the eternal Godhead & His inspired word for the TRUTH and you will grow spiritually..