Did Jesus have siblings?

[tml3625]

Can anyone site the verse from the bible that states that Mary was a virgin all of her life?

 

[Major_Tom]

In addition, there is a big elephant in the room that I believe, no one has mentioned thus far. That is the absence of anyone at anytime in history claiming the bragging rights that they were a sibling or a blood relative of Jesus Christ. If ever there was a name to be dropped by name droppers then Jesus of Nazareth is it. Even if you married someone who had a friend whose third cousin’s husband was a cousin of Jesus 20 zillion times removed you would have bragging rights. Yet throughout history there is an absolute vacuum, a silence that is complete. No one ever made such a claim. In the early church where various cities bragged they had the body of this Apostle or that Saint or that they received the Gospel from this or that Apostle there are two claims never made. No place claimed they had the body of Mary and no one claimed to be Jesus’ relative.

Your first point in this post is a good one; if I can think of a decent argument against it, I’ll post, in the spirit of continuing a good discussion…

Regarding the post above: Did Mary boast of being Jesus’ mother? Did Joseph boast of his position? Why then do you assume it as a given that a potential brother would boast?

 

[Sir_Knight]

So noted!

The God I believe in isn’t going to banish me to hell because I acknowledge a lack of belief on a topic. I aspire to humbly try and explore, and answer that lack of belief.

I don’t know what “god” you believe in but Jesus promised the Apostles and their successors that WHATEVER they bind on earth WILL BE bound in heaven.

 

[NHInsider]

Can anyone site the verse from the bible that states that Mary was a virgin all of her life?

Can you cite a verse from the Bible that says she wasn’t?

For that matter, can you cite a verse from the Bible that says you shouldn’t believe anything that isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible?

 

[Major_Tom]

I don’t know what “god” you believe in but Jesus promised the Apostles and their successors that WHATEVER they bind on earth WILL BE bound in heaven.

Not trying to pick a fight, Sir! Just stating that I don’t the same stock into that quote as you do.

 

[tml3625]

Can you cite a verse from the Bible that says she wasn’t?

For that matter, can you cite a verse from the Bible that says you shouldn’t believe anything that isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible?

I think Matt 1:25 sums it up. Spin it any way you want.

 

[Sir_Knight]

the bible is the christian authority, not the church, or it’s leaders.

Really? I got a newsflash for ya – the bible was not brought down from heaven by an angel or given to somebody on a mountain top. It was assembled by the Catholic Church. They either had the authority to do this or they didn’t. If they did, then they have authority above and beyond the bible. If they didn’t, then you have no proof that the bible is indeed the Word of God. Prove to me that the Gospel of Thomas does not belong in the bible and that the Gospel of Mark does belong in the bible.

You can’t because the bible does not define itself.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Not trying to pick a fight, Sir! Just stating that I don’t the same stock into that quote as you do.

Tell me then, what does that passage mean to you?

 

[Major_Tom]

If Christ had siblings why is it they were never mentioned by any of the Early Church Fathers, who were instructed form the original 12 apostles?

Good question. And one that I see has been stated many times.

To be clear, I am not convinced that there were siblings. And frankly, I don’t see tremendous import to the issue even if there were. However, I have read enough to say that it seems possible, if only very remote.

In response to your question, I’ll ask another: why do have so little of Jesus’ first thirty years of life? Surely, the early Church fathers and apostles must have known more about them? Why do have but brief sketches of some of the Apostles?

Why do here nothing of when Joseph died? Granted, he’s not Jesus’ biological father, but does he mean so little as to not to warrant a mention? How did Jesus feel? Did Jesus ponder using his abilities to raise him, a la Lazarus?

We know Jesus had strained relations with his family, correct? One possible (I repeat, possible!) answer to all of these questions: the Gospel writers felt that the answers didn’t offer any insight into Jesus or his mission, and so did not write of it.

 

[PraiseB2God]

I am by no means a Catholic scholar. I have been folowing this discussion, for I have had similar conversations with friends. I find that Sir Knight has explained it quite clearly and I defend my faith in a similar way in regards to the Perpetual virginity of Mary. After long discussions with my friends and I am just beating a dead horse I tell them.

“If you believe in Sola Scripturu you don’t know whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. Since you refuse to depend upon the teachings of the early church, or the teachings of the early Protestant denominations, you’re perpetually left to wonder.”

I love it!!

It’s absolutely true. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the brothers and sisters were his YOUNGER brothers and sisters. There was also no such thing as a sister-in-law, so any woman married to any of Jesus’s older brothers (Joseph’s sons from an earlier marriage) would have been His sisters.

 

[Major_Tom]

Tell me then, what does that passage mean to you?

I don’t want to derail the thread too much… in short, if you’re curious, post #99 has a few brief highlights of my opinions.

To answer your question in a brief fashion: The Gospel writers are human, and thus shaped their narratives to reflect their own biases. No conspiracy theory here. They are simply human, and thus as biased as you and I, and are quoting Jesus as best as they can, years after the fact. Witness then, differences in fact and in tone between each of the Gospels.

I am not convinced that the Bible is inspired word, nor that the Holy Spirit oversaw and shaped its production. And when I say ‘convinced’, I’m not looking for Bible quotes, or ‘facts’, to convince me. I’m basing this just as much on my feeling, intuition, gut, etc. As I stated in an earlier post, I say this not to try and undercut the belief of any poster here, or to be confrontational.

Further, Jesus often spoke figuratively, as with parables. Was he speaking figuratively here?

 

[inkaneer]

Thank you for asking…!

I was brought up Catholic, but drifted from the faith post-college. I tried a local Unitarian church within the last six months and enjoy it quite a bit. One of their key tenets is a ‘free and responsible’ search for truth and God, which I like.

I have doubts regarding Jesus’s divinity. I don’t rule it out completely, but found that it was a distraction to me, trying to square the circle of the trinity. Specifically, I have doubts regarding the Holy Spirit and the infallibility of Church teaching and Bible authenticity; Papal authority (I’m cool with that Jesus was clear about Peter being the Rock, but I think that the line of succession after that is no more or less infallible than anything else). Third, if God expresses his grace to everyone, why does he need Jesus? And lastly, the commonality of hero myth/virgin births throughout other cultures gives me pause that Jesus must be the only full, accurate rendition of this story.

Having said that, I am open to the idea that Jesus is divine. But that belief simply makes mores sense to me when I think about the possibility of God expressing himself through other people/ things, without the preface that Jesus must be head and shoulders above the rest. It’s almost like an ‘if/then’ thing: if God wanted to explain himself to one people thru Jesus, why couldn’t he also use another guise to express himself to another people? I also confess an attraction to the possibility of deism; that God indeed created the Universe, but is not actively involved in it.

Yes, I realize some of those beliefs are inconsistent! Every good book I read seems to add two more to my reading list. I don’t pretend that I have solid answers, so I won’t try and convince people here that they are wrong. I love reading on the subject, and love vibrant discussions. I was in the middle of Ben Witherington Jr.‘s What Have They Done to Jesus, (a strong defense of the mainstream Christian belief re: Jesus) before I had to return it to the library. I may try C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity next.

Well you are on a journey and it would seem a long one at that. But remember this , don’t be surprise when you find that the end of your journey is exactly where you initially started. And doesn’t it seem strange to you that God would establish a church and then leave it alone to its own devices without somehow guiding that church and that guidance continuing past that initial generation? If God is really God would He not provide for something He started? Also I think one of your problems is what you stated when you said you were “. . . trying to square the circle of the trinity”. Just leave it as a trinity. You won’t understand it, no one has. It is one of those mysteries of faith which one day we will know when we are not hampered by a finite mind.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think Matt 1:25 sums it up. Spin it any way you want.

[bibledrb]Matt 1:25[/bibledrb]This was already addressed …

2 Samuel 6:23 = And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death. … Does this imply she had children after her death?

 

[tml3625]

Really? I got a newsflash for ya – the bible was not brought down from heaven by an angel or given to somebody on a mountain top. It was assembled by the Catholic Church. They either had the authority to do this or they didn’t. If they did, then they have authority above and beyond the bible. If they didn’t, then you have no proof that the bible is indeed the Word of God. Prove to me that the Gospel of Thomas does not belong in the bible and that the Gospel of Mark does belong in the bible.

You can’t because the bible does not define itself.

Sorry to correct you but the present day bible was not assembled by the catholic church. King James is responsible for the present day King James Bible. King James ultimately decided what was to be included and excluded from the bible. Any gospel not included in the bible was decided by King James. All bibles printed today are either true to the King James version or variations or alternate interpretations thereof. King James believed that he was above the pope and the catholic church. In my opinion, King James had no business assembling the present day bible given his rather unsavory reputation.

 

[Major_Tom]

Well you are on a journey and it would seem a long one at that. But remember this , don’t be surprise when you find that the end of your journey is exactly where you initially started. And doesn’t it seem strange to you that God would establish a church and then leave it alone to its own devices without somehow guiding that church and that guidance continuing past that initial generation? If God is really God would He not provide for something He started? Also I think one of your problems is what you stated when you said you were “. . . trying to square the circle of the trinity”. Just leave it as a trinity. You won’t understand it, no one has. It is one of those mysteries of faith which one day we will know when we are not hampered by a finite mind.

So much material for discussion…! So close to my bedtime…!

If I can’t understand it, why it is the linchpin of the faith? I know, because it shows God that I’m faithful. ALl I can tell you is, it was a distraction to me, and didn’t give me anything constructive to get thru the day, so to speak. When I set it aside, I felt rather liberated. And don’t get me wrong, I still acknowledge the mystery of God.

If God is really God would He not provide for something He started?

Not to derail the thread, but I could never feel comfortable knowing that there were/are so many who have not heard of Jesus.

 

[inkaneer]

Your first point in this post is a good one; if I can think of a decent argument against it, I’ll post, in the spirit of continuing a good discussion…

Regarding the post above: Did Mary boast of being Jesus’ mother? Did Joseph boast of his position? Why then do you assume it as a given that a potential brother would boast?

The scriptures paint a picture of Mary and Joseph as being righteous people. However, IF Jesus did have any relatives through Mary we really have no assurance they would be righteous people. In addition the church developed the boasting of having this or that saint after the first generation yet there is no evidence of any such boasting at any time after the first century by anyone claiming to be related to Jesus. Are you insinuating that in 2000 years all of Jesus’ relatives were so righteous that not a single one of them would boast if it was indeed true? That is hard to believe. In the mean time concentrate on my first point.

 

[tml3625]

[bibledrb]Matt 1:25[/bibledrb]This was already addressed …

2 Samuel 6:23 = And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death. … Does this imply she had children after her death?

Sorry, 2 Samuel 6:23 Has absolutely nothing to do with Matt 1:25. Like I said, spin it any way you want. I might add that you are misquoting 2 Samuel 6:23. " And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death". You inserted the word “until” instead of “to”. Huge difference! This was easy, Michal had no children. You should go to bed now.

 

[tml3625]

I love it!!

It’s absolutely true. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the brothers and sisters were his YOUNGER brothers and sisters. There was also no such thing as a sister-in-law, so any woman married to any of Jesus’s older brothers (Joseph’s sons from an earlier marriage) would have been His sisters.

Joseph’s sons from an earlier marriage??? Where did you pull that out of??

 

[inkaneer]

Sorry to correct you but the present day bible was not assembled by the catholic church. King James is responsible for the present day King James Bible. King James ultimately decided what was to be included and excluded from the bible. Any gospel not included in the bible was decided by King James. All bibles printed today are either true to the King James version or variations or alternate interpretations thereof. King James believed that he was above the pope and the catholic church. In my opinion, King James had no business assembling the present day bible given his rather unsavory reputation.

I am not sorry to correct you but you are wrong. Jerome’s Vulgate of about 400 AD was the first bible. As for King James, he actually had no direct envolvement, other than authorizing it, in developing the version that bears his name. The entire reason for the KJV was because the Bible that protestants were using was the Geneva Bible and the Geneva Bible contained marginal notes which many believed contradicted the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. King James, naturally, was a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings so he commissioned a Bible to ‘correct’ the wrongs of the Geneva Bible and his Bible became the only version “authorized” to be used in England. If you recall the Pilgrims left England because they rejected the King James ‘authorized’ version and kept the Geneva Bible.

 

[tml3625]

Sorry, didn’t realized the Vulgate was still used. Over the years all versions of the bible were updated and revised so it is anyone’s guess what was deleted or added or who ultimately decided what was included or deleted or why some gospels were not included.