A
Anna_Scott
Guest
No worries JP.
I understand your point. I was just trying to get some help with the brother/sister issue.I’m glad you are here and participating.
Peace,
Anna
- Status
I understand your point. I was just trying to get some help with the brother/sister issue.I’m glad you are here and participating.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
IggyAntiochus,
Interesting point. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Thanks,
Anna
I
IggyAntiochus
Guest
The only time we hear from James or any of Jesus’ other relations is when they think he has lost his mind. John 7:5 explicitly states that his brothers did not believe in Him.
Another important passage in relation to the identity of the son of Alphaeus is 1 Corinthians 15. There Paul states that Jesus, after the resurrection, first appeared to the twelve apostles…of which both James son of Zebedee and James son of Alphaeus would have been numbered. Then Jesus appeared to the 500…then to James. This would be his brother, because Paul has already said that Jesus appeared to James son of Alphaeus (among the twelve).
G
grandfather
Guest
Saint Paul when defending his authority as an apostle says he met Peter. He says he also met James the brother of the Lord. Presumably this is the same James that is referenced with other brothers in Matthew and Mark.
If we look at the places in scripture that list the apostles by name we notice that there are two apostles named James. In order to differentiate one from the other both of their fathers are named. One is the son of Zebedee and the other Alpheus. Alpheus and Clopas are the same, like Richard and Dick, but that is irrelevant.
Notice that neither James’s father is named Joseph. Therefore the claim that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage and one might be James the Apostle brother of the Lord is wrong.
If you read the accounts of the crucifixion the women at the cross are named and their relations, husbands, sister, etc. From this plus the naming of the apostles James fathers you can see who the relations of Jesus were.
So we know who the parents are of the person called James brother of the lord by Paul. Neither James has Mary or Joseph for parents.
If the neither apostle James had Mary or Joseph as a parent, but one was called brother of the Lord, he could not be a sibling.
If we look at the places in scripture that list the apostles by name we notice that there are two apostles named James. In order to differentiate one from the other both of their fathers are named. One is the son of Zebedee and the other Alpheus. Alpheus and Clopas are the same, like Richard and Dick, but that is irrelevant.
Notice that neither James’s father is named Joseph. Therefore the claim that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage and one might be James the Apostle brother of the Lord is wrong.
If you read the accounts of the crucifixion the women at the cross are named and their relations, husbands, sister, etc. From this plus the naming of the apostles James fathers you can see who the relations of Jesus were.
So we know who the parents are of the person called James brother of the lord by Paul. Neither James has Mary or Joseph for parents.
If the neither apostle James had Mary or Joseph as a parent, but one was called brother of the Lord, he could not be a sibling.
S
stevekehl
Guest
The root question is not did Jesus have brothers and sisters, the question is why do some people consider this such an important point of doctrine. Christ never said belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was necessary to be saved. Believe it if you must, deny it if you want, Jesus’ command to love one another trumps tradition.
D
Doxiemom
Guest
I think that it is very important that Mary remained “intact”, never losing her verifiable virginity. The reason being that this little bit of tissue is the living witness to the fact that everything was fulfilled according to prophecy. Had she had more children, this evidence would be lost.
It is quite possible that Joseph had childen and their mother died. And many reasons why he was unable to consummate the marriage (which I am sure God arranged). My guess , though, Mary and Joseph snuck in as many intimate cuddles possible. Loving physical closeness , without intercourse, is a God given right in marriage.
It is quite possible that Joseph had childen and their mother died. And many reasons why he was unable to consummate the marriage (which I am sure God arranged). My guess , though, Mary and Joseph snuck in as many intimate cuddles possible. Loving physical closeness , without intercourse, is a God given right in marriage.
1
1voice
Guest
I realize that my point of view goes against the grain… But it is you that chose to post on the “non Catholic” part of the forum…
It doesnt matter one iota if Jesus had biological siblings … or not. It doesnt reduce Mary’s value by the smallest fraction of a percent. It changes nothing. Jesus created human beings… and the process!!!
Jesus loves humanity. If Mary and Joseph raised a big family … and Jesus had biological brothers and sisters… Halleluia!!! … If not … Halleluia!!! as well.
I have been around Catholics for more than half a century … They ask that same question … over and over and over … And God forbid anyone should give them the wrong response …
G
grandfather
Guest
If you understand the Incarnation for what it is, and the law, you can easily see that what took place was a marriage. Heaven and earth were married. God married His people. Jesus calls Himself the bridegroom. How many times does He refer to Himself as such.I realize that my point of view goes against the grain… But it is you that chose to post on the “non Catholic” part of the forum…
It doesnt matter one iota if Jesus had biological siblings … or not. It doesnt reduce Mary’s value by the smallest fraction of a percent. It changes nothing. Jesus created human beings… and the process!!!
Jesus loves humanity. If Mary and Joseph raised a big family … and Jesus had biological brothers and sisters… Halleluia!!! … If not … Halleluia!!! as well.
I have been around Catholics for more than half a century … They ask that same question … over and over and over … And God forbid anyone should give them the wrong response …
When the angel came to Mary and announced to her that she would give birth to a very important person, she asked how that could happen. She was engaged to be married, betrothed. Joseph had not yet taken her into his home. What would be the natural response of any woman in this situation? Wouldn’t it be logical for her to think she and Joseph would be the parents of this child who was yet to be conceived, after they began to have marital relaitions, which was imminent? It would unless they never planned to have maritial relations.
God accuses Israel of being unfaithful to Him, how? As an adultress with many lovers, while He is the faithful spouse.
Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost. She had a baby. She bore God’s child who is God.
Why would it matter one iota if Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit? She might already have had several children. It would not have mattered as long as the part of the story is true that the angel came to her, or something extraordinary happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit.
It mattered, because this woman is the bride, the wife in the marriage between heaven and earth, God and man. If she were to have children from Joseph and the Holy Ghost she would be unfaithful to God.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Sure is against the grain.I realize that my point of view goes against the grain… But it is you that chose to post on the “non Catholic” part of the forum…
It doesn’t matter one iota if Jesus had biological siblings … or not. It doesnt reduce Mary’s value by the smallest fraction of a percent. It changes nothing. Jesus created human beings… and the process!!!
Jesus loves humanity. If Mary and Joseph raised a big family … and Jesus had biological brothers and sisters… Halleluia!!! … If not … Halleluia!!! as well.
I have been around Catholics for more than half a century … They ask that same question … over and over and over … And God forbid anyone should give them the wrong response …
Exactly where in the early Church did any one say “It doesn’t matter one iota if Jesus had biological siblings … or not”?
Even Martin Luther (who I would call the quintessential Protestant instigator
) had no thoughts whatsoever that Mary was not a virgin and had other children.MJ
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe its an affirmative there were no biological brothers or sisters, which isn’t to say Jesus considered all who believed in Him and his Father brothers and sisters. Which He stated.
I just find it a bit appauling when we have those on national television such as Jimmy Swaggart etc promoting these notions uncontested. I fail to see how this brings about truth, harmony or unity. Creating confusion and division sounds more like a path to the destruction and fall of a society. And in history this is exactly how it starts.
IMHO ArchBishop Lori summed this well the other night. We are a country of Christians, every coin and currency states In God We Trust, every Court a Christian Bible is used, every President swears oath on the Bible. Its time we think in these terms instead or personal agenda. Which seems to do nothing but promote infidels within our own Christian society.
In 2000 years of Christian Church teaching there has never been one shread of evidence that Jesus had a biological or a half brother or sister. The documents are so abundant from the early church fathers and all the apostolic churchs one could spend a year just on this point researching. And in the end its an affirmative “no”. And this is just with the philosophy/theology aspect. When you include the Mystics, it just reachs extrodinary.
Peace
I just find it a bit appauling when we have those on national television such as Jimmy Swaggart etc promoting these notions uncontested. I fail to see how this brings about truth, harmony or unity. Creating confusion and division sounds more like a path to the destruction and fall of a society. And in history this is exactly how it starts.
IMHO ArchBishop Lori summed this well the other night. We are a country of Christians, every coin and currency states In God We Trust, every Court a Christian Bible is used, every President swears oath on the Bible. Its time we think in these terms instead or personal agenda. Which seems to do nothing but promote infidels within our own Christian society.
In 2000 years of Christian Church teaching there has never been one shread of evidence that Jesus had a biological or a half brother or sister. The documents are so abundant from the early church fathers and all the apostolic churchs one could spend a year just on this point researching. And in the end its an affirmative “no”. And this is just with the philosophy/theology aspect. When you include the Mystics, it just reachs extrodinary.
Peace
K
kcp
Guest
In certain translations (i.e. KJV) the word cousin is used (Luke 1:36) referring to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth. Some fundamentalists use this argument as “See, the bible does use the word cousin” thereby negating the argument that neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin” .
However, other bible translations use a looser term, like ‘relative’ or ‘kinsman’. And to be accurate, the original Greek “suggenes” {soong-ghen-ace’} translates to 1) one of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman.
So even this argument doesn’t hold water.
However, other bible translations use a looser term, like ‘relative’ or ‘kinsman’. And to be accurate, the original Greek “suggenes” {soong-ghen-ace’} translates to 1) one of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman.
So even this argument doesn’t hold water.
1
1voice
Guest
I said that Mary and Joseph may or may not have had biological children. It in no way diminishes Mary’s stature.Sure is against the grain.
Exactly where in the early Church did any one say “It doesn’t matter one iota if Jesus had biological siblings … or not”?
Even Martin Luther (who I would call the quintessential Protestant instigator
MJ
Martin Luther was a Catholic. His focus and concern were with the fact that Leo X was “preaching another gospel”. Gal 1: 8
E
Erich
Guest
As this link explains pretty convincingly, Catholics believe that Mary represents the Ark of the New Covenant, which has special significance to the Catholic belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
BTW, this belief is not restricted to Catholics - even the earliest Protestant Reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Those who deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary have cut themselves off even from their Protestant forefathers.
G
grandfather
Guest
A thing to keep in mind when in dialogue with Protestants is that there is never any settled matter. It does not matter of the Church always had seven sacraments, or anything. If someone has a problem with it they change it. George Fox (the Quaker I beleive) said there are no sacraments. It does not matter that the Church always baptized infants and prayed to and for the dead. If someone gets the notion based on their interpretation of scripture they don’t agree with it, they will start a new church to do it the right way. If they decide the dogma on the Trinity is false, same thing and you have Jehovahs Witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons. It also does not matter what the founders of their denominations believed. It is all changeable if they think it needs correcting. That is why there are so many denominations. They all needed correcting.Sure is against the grain.
Exactly where in the early Church did any one say “It doesn’t matter one iota if Jesus had biological siblings … or not”?
Even Martin Luther (who I would call the quintessential Protestant instigator
MJ
So it does not matter what the early Christians believed or taught, or what any denomination today believes.
Why is the understanding that Mary is ever virgin important? Why does it matter to know this? There are two answers. One is that it is the part of salvation history, the way God chose to redeem us as foretold throughout the Old Testament. She is the LIVING ark of the Covenant. She bore Jesus. He dwelt in her virginal womb. The messiah entered without opening the door. He walks through walls.
As the ark was being transported and began to fall, a Jew reached up to prevent it and he was kiiled. What an unkind thing for God to do to a man well intended. It is there to give us understanding of who Mary is. If any man touch the ark constructed by human hands he will die. Mary is the living ark, the tabernacle that held Him, the holy of holies.
Why is the story of Queen Esther so important that it is part of the Bible? It foretells Mary’s role of intercession, just as much as the story of Abraham and Isaac foretells God sacrificing His only Son. It does not matter one iota that any of this this happened, but it is how God made it happen to confirm the sacrifice of His Son.
Isaac was not only the son of Abraham and Sarah, but he was the only son. The rest were illegitimate heirs. Mary only had one child and James the brother of the Lord was not Joseph’s son, according to scripture.
Why is it important that the story of King David, his wise son King Solomon and Bathsheba the Queen Mother be known? It is to show us that the one who sits on David’s thrown forever has a Queen Mother, the Queen of Heaven.
As we think about God’s design of salvation, to understand it best we need all of the pieces that God chose to reveal. Mary is a very key piece. Disregarding her is like trying to understand the Civil War absent knowing the roles of Abraham Lincoln or Robert E Lee or Jeffeson Davis. All we need to know is the slaves were freed and a lot of men were killed at Gettysburg. That does not give the whole picture.
Jesus took His humanity, His flesh and blood from Mary alone. She alone made Him of us. How a Christian group could decide that despite what early Christians believed about her, and the Bible says about her, is irrelevant, and instead they determine she is just another woman and should be ignored is quite perplexing. Imagine telling Jesus you are only interested in Him and His queen mother does not matter to you.
C
couponfit
Guest
Joseph was a widower, he had children already. Not sure where they were when Mary gave birth.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And let us say Jesus did have siblings,how does that change anything about Jesus’ being the Son of God? More important, if Jesus had siblings, I find it so odd not one NT writer bothers give more detail about them during Jesus ministry and especially after His death? The siblings of the Son of God and hardly anything about them?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Well, Anna, don’t be too surprised. You would be amazed at the ignorance of many Catholics, even on this issue. It is evident they haven’t thought this out very well. It is amazing how many people sit in the pews each Sunday and remain very poorly catechized. I just chalk it up to ignorance rather than a well thought out position. Most will come to agreement when it is properly explained to them.
E
Erich
Guest
I can’t even begin to imagine the inferiority complex any (hypothetical) blood siblings of Jesus would surely have had growing up, due to their inability to live up to the example set by their older brother.
Why can’t you be like your brother Jesus?
He never gives us a moment’s trouble.
He always makes his bed.
He always picks up his toys.
He is never a minute late for curfew.
He always brings Dad’s camel home clean.
He never talks back.
He even cleans the ring out of the bathtub and hangs up his clothes.
J
JPeter
Guest
As someone who accepts Mary’s perpetual virginity I agree with this statement. Even if Mary had biological children after Christ it has nothing to do with salvation and honoring a blessed mother with children means just as much as honoring a woman who was ever virgin. Mothers will know what I am talking about. She is just as significant whether she had children or not. Sex within marriage is a good thing.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Catholic Church would not disagree that sex within marriage is a good thing. Have you read “Theology of the Body” by John Paul, II? The implication that the Church feels that a woman is somehow diminished by having children is nonsense. When you are married in the Catholic Church you must promise to be open to having children and preventing pregnancy through artificial means is a sin. No Church is more pro-family than the Catholic Church. Indeed, procreation is looked upon as the ultimate purpose of a relationship between a man and a woman.
The issue with Mary is entirely another matter altogether. She had a special relationship with God. She was the daughter of the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the mother of the Son. No one had this relationship with the Trinity but her. She was chosen among all women for the single purpose of being the Mother of God. Her perpetual virginity is a sign of this relationship with God. It does not mean that the Church views having children as something less than good.
- Status