Did Jesus have siblings?

[elvisman]

No it is not degrading unless someone thinks that sex is degrading within a marriage. I do not think that. It does not besmirch someones character to have sex in marriage. She is not an adulteress because she has only been married to one man; Joseph. The Holy Spirit overshadowing her was not spiritual sex. She was a virgin and gave birth as such. If you consider what the Holy Spirit working in her to be sexual, that is your beliefs.
Mary did not commit adultery. She did have relations with her husband Joseph IMO based upon scripture.

I’ve read all of your posts on this thread and have yet to read where you have pointed out - in Scripture - where she did in fact have relations with Joseph.
Show me.

 

[LutheranDK]

it’s right in the text and of course it’s talking about mary. the crown around her head obviously denotes royalty and they are in heaven because the next verse the devil and his angels are thrown out of heaven.

read up on the queen mother of the davidic kingdoms too, scott han wrote a great book on it which you will never read anyway so why waste anyones time with the question?

Oh…ok, so the theologians who’ve been at this debate for centuries can stop now, because…some anonymous user at a forum on the internet has just decided that OF COURSE it’s about Mary, period! (without even ONE argument to support it!) LOL. You obviously think you’re very bright, but you don’t seem to have any idea on how to conduct a civilized debate (or a debate at all), and it’s comical…

Your argument, that they’re in Heaven because in the next verse satan is cast out of Heaven, is downright laughable. It is totally uncohesive, and wouldn’t even fly at a religious studies class in High School, much less a serious theological debate.

I fail, too, to see what the queen mothers of the Davidic Kingdom have to do with all this, but you know what? Don’t even bother explaining (even if you’re able to…) I’m not wasting another minute of my life on your hateful rhetoric, and am therefore adding you to my ignore-list, and if you’re any kind of decent person you’ll not exploit that to badmouth me further when I can’t see it.

I’m done talking to you mate. Cheerio!

To anyone who might share this guy’s idea that the queen mothers of the Davidic Kingdom is somehow important in this debate, and who’s capable of civilized conversation, please explain it to me…and it would be nice if I could get an answer to my original post as well…

 

[Rightlydivide]

I’ve read all of your posts on this thread and have yet to read where you have pointed out - in Scripture - where she did in fact have relations with Joseph.
Show me.

The Bible does not discuss when and where Mary and Joseph had sex. What it does say is he took her as his wife. But he did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. Of course Catholics think that should read “Joseph never had sex with her, even after she was born”. The phrase used hoes hou(until) is not the clincher. It is the context and the other passages.
Obviously Catholics disagree.

 

[ChristIsLord]

and i don’t know how to conduct a debate? o.k. i’ll reference your ramblings up above for my debating 101 class. pretty funnny you think you are in a position to take the high road here.

read scott hahns book on the matter if you’re really interested, if not put me on ignore i could care less, i don’t get worked up over message boards and whine like a baby.

 

[LutheranDK]

Just some thoughts here:

• If a woman was pregnant outside of marraige with the son of a man, X, is that son a bastard?
  – Christ was not a bastard child; He was/is the Son of God and Mary, right? Doesn’t this indicate some relationship between Mary and God, the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, " The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; ) that prevents Christ from being a child born within an inappropriate relationship?
• Is it possible Joseph’s role was to provide the societal legitimacy (and protection) for Mary and Jesus?

We know Jesus was not Joseph’s son; is it possible both Lk 3:23 and Mt 1:16 represent that societal legitimacy?

I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit had a SEXUAL relation with Mary?

Is that the teaching of the RC Church?

 

[elvisman]

Well, I guess when a Church threatens to burn you in the fires of hell if you disagree even with ONE iota of its doctrine, it’s hard to break the hold. (Even when those doctrines are visibly false)

I managed to do so, though.

Where and when did the Catholic Church state that the it would “burn you in the fires of hell if you disagree even with ONE iota of its doctrine”??

---

You also go on to claim that her ***“doctrines are visibly false” ***yet, you haven’t proven this.

If you’re going to conduct a conversation by spewing out ridiculous falshoods, maybe this forum isn’t for you.

 

[cfrancis]

Yes, that person is called a bastard. Mary is not pregnant by a man or the result of sex though. I do not believe there is a term for someone like that…oh wait…the Son of God!

Relationship? I am not sure what you mean. It does not say anything about that.
I do not believe the Holy Spirit overshadowing her was sexual in any form. I am not sure if you do or not. My understanding is that only Mormons believed that.

I agree: there was no sex b/n God the Holy Spirit and Mary. Yet the result is the same as a sexual union: new life.

As for the term bastard, my Webster’s on my desk speaks only of illegitimacy and being born of unwed parents. In the purely natural sense, sure, a sexual union is implied; but Christ’s birth is not a purely natural occurence.

We have the meeting of the divine and eternal with the human and temporal, which, in reality, renders our vocabulary somewhat useless in an attempt to describe this (such as the word “relationship” to which you have attached a sexual connotation).

Does not Mary carrying the child of God the Holy Spirit indicate a unique relationship between Mary and God the Holy Spirit?

I do not believe that that Mary being overshadowed denotes a relationship. This seems vaguely sexual and inappropriate to think that the Holy Spirit had a physical or emotional relationship.

Again, I think the term “emotional” is purely natural, and inadequate for describing this meeting of the divine and human.
Surely the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit wasn’t simply an administerial event, devoid of any connection or subjectivity.

 

[cfrancis]

I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit had a SEXUAL relation with Mary?

Is that the teaching of the RC Church?

You can put away the “” signs, for I said nothing of the sort.
Neither the Catholic Church nor I believe there was a sexual encounter between God the Holy Spirit and Mary.

How does “relationship” = “sex”???

 

[estesbob]

The Bible does not discuss when and where Mary and Joseph had sex. What it does say is he took her as his wife. But he did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. Of course Catholics think that should read “Joseph never had sex with her, even after she was born”. The phrase used hoes hou(until) is not the clincher. It is the context and the other passages.
Obviously Catholics disagree.

Which is a problem inherent withdepending on ones own personal interpretation of Scripture. Protestants interpret Scripture to say Mary had other children. Catholics interpret scripturesto say she did not, When you had such a dispute the best thing to do is go back to the beginning and see what the earliest Christians thought. The fact that Mary was a perpetual virgin was something that was agreed upon by most Christians for the first 1500 years after Christ rose from the dead. Can you show us any tradition prior to the so-called Reformation that held that Mary had children other than Jesus?

You are boxed in by Sola Scripture which does nothing more than lead to unending verse wars , multiple ,often conflicting doctrines and thousands of different denominations.

 

[ChristIsLord]

You can put away the “” signs, for I said nothing of the sort.
Neither the Catholic Church nor I believe there was a sexual encounter between God the Holy Spirit and Mary.

How does “relationship” = “sex”???

don’t worry his non stop emoticons , and twisting of what you wrote:shrug: is how he conducts a “serious theological debate”… that WILL pass the 12th grade:thumbsup: write it all down in case you have to give a class on proper debate form.

 

[elvisman]

The Bible does not discuss when and where Mary and Joseph had sex. What it does say is he took her as his wife. But he did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. Of course Catholics think that should read “Joseph never had sex with her, even after she was born”. The phrase used hoes hou(until) is not the clincher. It is the context and the other passages.
Obviously Catholics disagree.

So, you know for a fact that the word, “until” means that they had sex?
What do you make of Hebrews 10:12-13?
***But this one (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; *****now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. **
**Does Jesus cease to take "his seat forever at the right hand of God" AFTER “his enemies are made his footstool”??
Matt. 28:20:
**“And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” **
Does Jesus disappear AFTER the end of the age?

---

 

[Rightlydivide]

I agree: there was no sex b/n God the Holy Spirit and Mary. Yet the result is the same as a sexual union: new life.

As for the term bastard, my Webster’s on my desk speaks only of illegitimacy and being born of unwed parents. In the purely natural sense, sure, a sexual union is implied; but Christ’s birth is not a purely natural occurence.

We have the meeting of the divine and eternal with the human and temporal, which, in reality, renders our vocabulary somewhat useless in an attempt to describe this (such as the word “relationship” to which you have attached a sexual connotation).

Does not Mary carrying the child of God the Holy Spirit indicate a unique relationship between Mary and God the Holy Spirit?

Again, I think the term “emotional” is purely natural, and inadequate for describing this meeting of the divine and human.
Surely the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit wasn’t simply an administerial event, devoid of any connection or subjectivity.

Perhaps I can simplify, at the risk of oversimplifying. I do not know or have any information about the nature of the relationship, if that is the word to use.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So, you know for a fact that the word, “until” means that they had sex?
What do you make of Hebrews 10:12-13?
***But this one (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; ***now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool.
Does Jesus cease to take “*his seat forever at the right hand of God” AFTER *“his enemies are made his footstool”??
Matt. 28:20:
"And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
Does Jesus disappear AFTER the end of the age?

---

Hoes hou always indicates a change. Both passages you quoted do as well.
I have had this debate. I am actually a little more interested in the other debates. I understand your perspective.

 

[ralphinal]

Sure. But once again, I think that ChristisLord saying that Matthew can be used to ascertain who was where, when all four have a little to say in the matter, although certainly Luke is different, is not the route to go.

Ok.

Honestly, the safest position is to say that Scripture is not perfectly clear on the matter.

Now, that is not the Catholic Answer. As a CAtholic, I trust the Church to be protected from teaching things that are heretical. Also, I understand that Scripture is not a complete list of everythign said and done by Jesus or his followers. Those of you who are not Catholic can disagree. That does not make you correct.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Ok.

Honestly, the safest position is to say that Scripture is not perfectly clear on the matter.

Now, that is not the Catholic Answer. As a CAtholic, I trust the Church to be protected from teaching things that are heretical. Also, I understand that Scripture is not a complete list of everythign said and done by Jesus or his followers. Those of you who are not Catholic can disagree. That does not make you correct.

Sure. Understood. Let me point out what I believe to be true. If you were one of us, you would think as we do. Now before you give me the golden obvious award let me explain. I believe that the most logical interpretation of scripture is our view.
I believe that YOUR view is shaped by tradition and without that, you would agree with us. You obviously see nothing wrong with Sacred Tradition…and lord knows I do not want to get into that right now anyway.
Now you are welcome to disagree, but Sola Scriptura people who believe in the perpetual virginity without the framework of tradition (the earliest reformers were immersed in a culture that supported the Catholic view) are few and far between.

 

[FCEGM]

The Bible does not discuss when and where Mary and Joseph had sex. What it does say is he took her as his wife. But he did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. Of course Catholics think that should read “Joseph never had sex with her, even after she was born”. The phrase used hoes hou(until) is not the clincher. It is the context and the other passages.
Obviously Catholics disagree.

With good reason.

Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not? There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if he was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before?

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus. Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter. A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.)

Under Jewish, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he would have been stoned to death also. And Joseph, (if for no other reason, but we know there was one) being a “righteous man” would have been obedient to Jewish law whether or not anyone else knew about the origins of the Child.

Further, in Jewish law, a master was allowed to to be intimate with an unmarried slave woman but he must thence marry her and treat her like a full wife not a concubine.* In essence he has “dibs” on her over and above anyone else’s claim but he must carry through with full matrimony. When Mary said, “Behold the HANDMAIDEN of the Lord.*Let it be done to me according to your word,”*she was indicating that she considered God to be her master and that she was acepting His proposal of marriage over Joseph’s betrothal claim.

For more on this see: cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

 

[ralphinal]

Sure. Understood. Let me point out what I believe to be true. If you were one of us, you would think as we do. Now before you give me the golden obvious award let me explain. I believe that the most logical interpretation of scripture is our view.
I believe that YOUR view is shaped by tradition and without that, you would agree with us. You obviously see nothing wrong with Sacred Tradition…and lord knows I do not want to get into that right now anyway.
Now you are welcome to disagree, but Sola Scriptura people who believe in the perpetual virginity without the framework of tradition (the earliest reformers were immersed in a culture that supported the Catholic view) are few and far between.

Understood and I agree.

I would ask what does it matter anyway.

How is your salvation affected by if she had other children or did not?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Sure. Understood. Let me point out what I believe to be true. If you were one of us, you would think as we do. Now before you give me the golden obvious award let me explain. I believe that the most logical interpretation of scripture is our view.
I believe that YOUR view is shaped by tradition and without that, you would agree with us. You obviously see nothing wrong with Sacred Tradition…and lord knows I do not want to get into that right now anyway.
Now you are welcome to disagree, but Sola Scriptura people who believe in the perpetual virginity without the framework of tradition (the earliest reformers were immersed in a culture that supported the Catholic view) are few and far between.

First, thank you for your the respectfulness and sincere tone of your posts so far

I just had to comment on that last phrase though, to point out how it sounds from a Catholic perspective:

“people who believe in a concept the Bible doesn’t support, aren’t going to believe the Bible supports the perpetual virginity of Mary.”
I think in order to have real dialogue, the real issue, is why must we believe Sola Scriptura? (And there are TONS of threads on this, so I don't mean to beat the dead horse)

 

[rolltidefan]

“Obviously”?

How is “Obviously” the correct word to use in that sentence?

Oh my…so you are going to pick one word out of all that! OBVIOUSLY, I don’t need to really comment on this, but since you picked that word. I was saying that most prostestants obviously believe the same about Mary and we OBVIOUSLY don’t believe what you believe. That is all I was saying…Not a word to pick out with all the topics to debate here.

You don’t see it’s importance because you won’t allow it to BE of importance.

I guess the same could be said of you, but I am not God and don’t stand in judgement of people, what they believe and what is of importance to them. OBVIOUSLY, you don’t know me well enough to judge what is of importance to me.

The nature of protestantism is to narrow the focus onto some “small portion” of the whole of truth, and obsess on that to the exclusion of the the richness of the rest of truth.

OBVIOUSLY, not going to comment on this. I like most on here can do without the rough comments.

Anyway, God Bless You!

It’s known as heresy.

:shamrock2:

 

[Rightlydivide]

Understood and I agree.

I would ask what does it matter anyway.

How is your salvation affected by if she had other children or did not?

It absolutely is not. However, it is a huge deal and infallible for you guys I believe. I do not make a big deal out of it. Because our view is attacked, even stated that we think she was a harlot, I feel compelled to defend our view. It is not something that comes up when witnessing to people…no.