Did Jesus have siblings?

[PRmerger]

Sorry if my tone offends. That is not the intent. I try to be polite but I also don’t sugarcoat things especially if it is coming either from scripture or official church teaching such as the CCC, Canon Law, etc.

Your tone, SK, is not offensive.

One might read St. Paul’s epistles and be “offended” by his tone, as well. In fact, there are quite a few modernists who are making an effort to have the Pauline letters removed from the Bible as they find them “misogynistic”. :ehh:

Whatever. Sometimes people make an issue about a writer’s “tone” when they really don’t like the content. It speaks too true and one would rather be offended than contemplate changing one’s life direction. (And I am not referring specifically to you, Major Tom. I am speaking in generalities, so please do not take offense! )

 

[Major_Tom]

I don’t understand your doubting that. You have a hard time releasing the question that the CC believes the HS guides His Church “like a marionette”? Where does your belief come from? What church document states we teach this?

Poor choice of words.

Is it more accurate to say that the Spirit guides the Church, making its teaching infallible? This is what I have a hard time believing, and why I am no longer Catholic.

 

[Major_Tom]

Major Tom responded:

PR responds:
Thank you for acknowledging that, MT.

The CC does not make any declaration whatsoever whether he was a half-brother, step-brother, cousin. Just that he was not Mary’s son.

And, clearly, he could not be a full brother of Jesus, correct? At the very most he was a half-brother. So your position is that James was the* half-brother* of Jesus?

More than likely, half-brother, I’d guess. This is a relatively new subject for me.

The case for full brother-ness seems long, but possible. I’m reading a book by Ben Witherington Jr. at the moment (**What Have they done with Jesus?) **that makes a case that James is a full brother.

I was making this point (about the Bible referring to James as a brother) just to clarify; I think an earlier poster had suggested the BIble never used the word ‘brother’ in conjunction with James. Witherington makes the case that it is used so offten in connection that James, that the word is more probably literal, not symbolic.

 

[PRmerger]

Poor choice of words.

Is it more accurate to say that the Spirit guides the Church, making its teaching infallible? This is what I have a hard time believing, and why I am no longer Catholic.

I believe you made reference to this earlier, but I am not clear on your position (or maybe I’m confusing you with someone on another thread): do you believe that the Bible is inspired? If so, do you believe that the Church made the correct decision to include Revelation, for example, but to exclude the Gospel of the Nazoreans?

If not, then do you not use the Bible as your source of Divine Revelation, and what do you use?

 

[PRmerger]

More than likely, half-brother, I’d guess. This is a relatively new subject for me.

The case for full brother-ness seems long, but possible

Really? You believe that James could be the son of Mary *and the son of the Holy Spirit? *Conceived in the same way as Jesus? (That’s the only way he would be the full brother of Jesus, correct?)

 

[Major_Tom]

Your tone, SK, is not offensive.

One might read St. Paul’s epistles and be “offended” by his tone, as well. In fact, there are quite a few modernists who are making an effort to have the Pauline letters removed from the Bible as they find them “misogynistic”. :ehh:

Whatever. Sometimes people make an issue about a writer’s “tone” when they really don’t like the content. It speaks too true and one would rather be offended than contemplate changing one’s life direction. (And I am not referring specifically to you, Major Tom. I am speaking in generalities, so please do not take offense! )

And just to be clear, I was not suggesting that his tone was offensive. Sir K. has very clearly delineated a place for himself, rigidly defined and articulated by very precise readings of Scripture and Church teaching.

To my ear, it sounds like a model that is less engaging than Jesus would be in reality (I’ve often thought of Simon and Garfunkels’ “I Am a Rock” reading this thread). Nonetheless, that’s my opinion, and Sir K. has clearly fleshed out his. No harm, no foul !

I find it ironic, that although the same God and Holy Spirit that forms and leads the Church with infallible teachings has still allowed circumstances where vaguenesses and “holes” in the details of books lead to well-intentioned posters (on this post as well as others) engaging in such spirited conversations about differences of policy.

 

[Major_Tom]

Really? You believe that James could be the son of Mary *and the son of the Holy Spirit? *Conceived in the same way as Jesus? (That’s the only way he would be the full brother of Jesus, correct?)

Isn’t it a Protestant view that James was a son of Joseph from an earlier marriage? To the people of the day (not being “in the loop” of who Jesus’ real father is), this would clearly make him the borther of Jesus, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that was my understanding of the Protestant view and that was the scenario that I was referring to.

 

[Major_Tom]

I believe you made reference to this earlier, but I am not clear on your position (or maybe I’m confusing you with someone on another thread): do you believe that the Bible is inspired? If so, do you believe that the Church made the correct decision to include Revelation, for example, but to exclude the Gospel of the Nazoreans?

If not, then do you not use the Bible as your source of Divine Revelation, and what do you use?

I am not confident that God has manifested himself exclusively to the peoples of the Old Testament; so yes, I doubt that the Bible is truly inspired, front to back, each and every book. I do not posit that there is a ‘rival’ inspired text; I think all of us, across the world and throughout history, are struggling with the same questions, and have the same basic toolbox with which to work from.

I think that God has manifested himslef to all throughout history; I’m guessing in a similar way that you refer to God extending his grace to every person. Beyond that, I think that there are several ways of knowing, and the Church is not the exclusive one.

 

[PRmerger]

I find it ironic, that although the same God and Holy Spirit that forms and leads the Church with infallible teachings has still allowed circumstances where vaguenesses and “holes” in the details of books lead to well-intentioned posters (on this post as well as others) engaging in such spirited conversations about differences of policy.

Why is that ironic? The CC has a multitude of areas in which we are free to speculate: Here’s just a short list of examples:

• Whether Mary died and was assumed, or “fell asleep”
• Whether Mary experienced labor pains
• Evolution
• Torture
• Capital punishment
• Communion on the tongue vs hand
• Confession face to face or behind a screen
• Talking in tongues
• Does the book of Revelation deal with the future or 1st century Christianity?
etc etc etc!!

You have a very un-informed understanding of the Catholic Church, Major Tom–said in all due respect and I will put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the CC, which probably did not provide adequate catechesis to you during your Catholic formation. In other words: not your fault (probably).

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it a Protestant view that James was a son of Joseph from an earlier marriage?

There is no “Protestant view” of things–there’s about 40,000 different “Protestant views”, so who’s to say what the single doctrine Protestants believe is on this issue?

To the people of the day (not being “in the loop” of who Jesus’ real father is), this would clearly make him the borther of Jesus, wouldn’t it?

Ah. I see what you’re saying. You’re saying that the early Christians may have assumed that James was the full brother of Jesus, as the son of Mary and the son of Joseph.

Regardless–he couldn’t have been the full brother of Jesus. Period.

 

[Major_Tom]

Why is that ironic? The CC has a multitude of areas in which we are free to speculate: Here’s just a short list of examples:

• Whether Mary died and was assumed, or “fell asleep”
• Whether Mary experienced labor pains
• Evolution
• Torture
• Capital punishment
• Communion on the tongue vs hand
• Confession face to face or behind a screen
• Talking in tongues
• Does the book of Revelation deal with the future or 1st century Christianity?
etc etc etc!!

You have a very un-informed understanding of the Catholic Church, Major Tom–said in all due respect and I will put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the CC, which probably did not provide adequate catechesis to you during your Catholic formation. In other words: not your fault (probably).

I’ll freely grant that this forum is not the most conducive for me! I KNOW that I’m not expressing myself as clearly as I could !

I am confident that my understanding is sound, and that my education growing up was good.

I think that the range of issues that you listed is a relatively minor list of issues.

I’ll try another way to express that thought of mine that you rebutted… when I read threads regarding sex in marriage, specifically on EXACTLY what is allowed and not allowed in the marriage bed…I see a great disparity in opinion. I see many people thinkning that they know the limits, or are acting in concert with them; yet others rebutting that as being outside of church teaching. I see this on many issues.

I think the cause is much too much specificity on teachings. in effect losing the forest for the trees. Wasn’t there a great debate in the Middle Ages on whether to cross yourslef with one finger or two?

 

[Major_Tom]

Ah. I see what you’re saying. You’re saying that the early Christians may have assumed that James was the full brother of Jesus, as the son of Mary and the son of Joseph.

Exactly. They would have lived in the same house, same profession as Dad… what else would they have assumed?

Regardless–he couldn’t have been the full brother of Jesus. Period.

Fair enough. I don’t find it quite that settled, but that’s cool…

 

[PRmerger]

I am not confident that God has manifested himself exclusively to the peoples of the Old Testament; so yes, I doubt that the Bible is truly inspired, front to back, each and every book. I do not posit that there is a ‘rival’ inspired text; I think all of us, across the world and throughout history, are struggling with the same questions, and have the same basic toolbox with which to work from.

I think that God has manifested himslef to all throughout history; I’m guessing in a similar way that you refer to God extending his grace to every person. Beyond that, I think that there are several ways of knowing, and the Church is not the exclusive one.

So then where do you get your views on God? Do you believe God is love? If so, why?

Do you believe that you’re made in the image and likeness of God? If so, why?

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. I don’t find it quite that settled, but that’s cool…

Ahhh!! If James is the FULL BROTHER of Jesus then he is the son of Mary and the son of the Holy Spirit. That makes James divine.

James is NOT the FULL brother of Jesus. Surely you see this, MT, yes? It is settled, correct?

 

[PRmerger]

I am confident that my understanding is sound, and that my education growing up was good.

Absolutely not. I can see just from our few posts that you were not catechized well at all.

Again, not your fault most likely. The CC has done an abysmal job at educating our young folks.

 

[Deacon_JAR]

1. Your link doesn’t work.
2. Even if it did, I’d rather stick with official church teaching as found in the CCC rather than something on youtube.

Sir Knight, I pray you are having a blessed day. You wrote, “Even if it did, I’d rather stick with official church teaching as found in the CCC rather than something on youtube.” Well my friend THE LINK WORKS; youtube.com/watch?v=5cTr8OoGMA0. Please copy and paste the link.

This is a message from Rev. Msgr. Eric R. Barr, Episcopal Vicar for Clergy and Religious for the Diocese of Rockford, IL. Bishop Thomas G. Doran is the bishop of this diocese. The Rockford Diocese covers 11 counties in Northern Illinois. Msgr. Barr’s e-mail is : vicarforclergy@rockforddiocese.org and his telephone numbers are: (815) 399-4300 and Fax (815) 399-5266.

I believe one of the main roles of this forum is to share and educate each other according with official teachings of the church, not to propagate our own interpretations or agenda. The message from Rev. Msgr. Eric Barr, who is an church official representing Bishop Thomas G. Doran, should be considered of great importance. If you have any concerns about the validity of the message of Msgr. Barr you are welcome to contact the Diocese of Rockford, IL @ www.rockforddiocese,org. I encourage all my friends to listen to his message using that link.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that the range of issues that you listed is a relatively minor list of issues.

It was not meant to be an exhaustive list.

I’ll try another way to express that thought of mine that you rebutted… when I read threads regarding sex in marriage, specifically on EXACTLY what is allowed and not allowed in the marriage bed…I see a great disparity in opinion. I see many people thinkning that they know the limits, or are acting in concert with them; yet others rebutting that as being outside of church teaching. I see this on many issues.

Exactly my point!

I think the cause is much too much specificity on teachings. in effect losing the forest for the trees.

That’s like saying, “Math is too specific. 2 + 2 =4 every single time? I think not!”

Wasn’t there a great debate in the Middle Ages on whether to cross yourslef with one finger or two?

Don’t know. Can you provide a source?

 

[inkaneer]

More than likely, half-brother, I’d guess. This is a relatively new subject for me.

The case for full brother-ness seems long, but possible. I’m reading a book by Ben Witherington Jr. at the moment (**What Have they done with Jesus?) **that makes a case that James is a full brother.

I was making this point (about the Bible referring to James as a brother) just to clarify; I think an earlier poster had suggested the BIble never used the word ‘brother’ in conjunction with James. Witherington makes the case that it is used so offten in connection that James, that the word is more probably literal, not symbolic.

Paul calls the Apostle James the brother of the Lord. There were two Apostles named James. The Bible says one was the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alpheaus. See Mt 10:2-3 for this. Neither one is a son of Joseph. So how could they be sibling brothers? But tradition holds that Alpheaus was the brother of Joseph and that would make James, the son of Alpheaus, Jesus’ brother by first century Jewish reckoning. So Paul calling James the brother of the Lord would be correct by Jewish reckoning.

 

[inkaneer]

Absolutely not. I can see just from our few posts that you were not catechized well at all.

Again, not your fault most likely. The CC has done an abysmal job at educating our young folks.

Major Tom lists himself as a Unitarian. He does not believe the Bible is divinely inspired. Unitarians are more divided than regular protestants. About the only thing that unites them is they deny the Trinity. Some protestants denominations do not think of them as being christian. For most, if not all of them, the Catholic Church does not recognize their baptism as being valid.

 

[Major_Tom]

Absolutely not. I can see just from our few posts that you were not catechized well at all.

Again, not your fault most likely. The CC has done an abysmal job at educating our young folks.

I’m not going to bicker with you. This forum may not allow me to effectively communicate all of my opinions. Nor do I have the time to craft draft after draft to get to the perfect version.

I’m assuming that you’re operating from a premise of: if someone was cathechized well, they couldn’t possibly leave, as your faith is the only true one. Would that be accurate?