Did Jesus have siblings?

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Number 1 : How can you make such a statement when the King James Bible didn’t appear until the 17th century and there are Catholic copies that pre-date it by dozens of centuries?

Number 2 : Where did King James get this authority to assemble the bible?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Actually, it isn’t “to” but “unto” (see here) which, grammatically, has the same meaning as “until” (see here). I think that it may be time for you to go to bed.

 

[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.

In regards to the authority to assemble the bible. God didn’t authorize anyone to assemble or edit the bible. Authority was assumed, not granted. Damascus assumed the authority as did King James and all the others through the years that assumed the authority to assemble the bible. The Catholic church was not “authorized” to assemble or edit the bible. The Catholic church “assumed” that authority. No one will ever know what was supposed to be or not supposed to be in the bible. Still, the bible is the ultimate authority in the Christian faith, not the church.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

No, but I think it can be inferred. Certainly I don’t think anyone can prove that Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin by scripture alone. It is a belief within the Church that has been handed down through tradition. But certainly anyone claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin can be refuted by scripture alone. I don’t think we should dismiss traditional beliefs lightly. After all where did these beliefs originate from? Perhaps from the apostles who would know better than us? Certainly it would be more credible to ask the source then to try to derive after the fact from scripture alone.

I think a good argument is found as I mentioned before in how Jesus told John to look after his mother while he was dieing on the cross. Jesus is on the cross and can hardly breathe never mind talk. He chooses his words carefully. He said that for a reason so we would know something. If Jesus had sibling it would not be customary for him to send his mother to someone else. If Jesus never had sibling then Mary would not have been having sex unless Joseph was unable to have kids. We think Joseph died sometime between the presentation in the temple and Jesus’ start of his ministry. Joseph is not mentioned after the presentation in the temple or at the miracle of the wine. There is no indication that Mary remarried anyone after Joseph died.

 

[tml3625]

Actually, it isn’t “to” but “unto” (see here) which, grammatically, has the same meaning as “until” (see here). I think that it may be time for you to go to bed.

The result is the same. She had no children.

 

[Sir_Knight]

In regards to the authority to assemble the bible. God didn’t authorize anyone to assemble or edit the bible.

I disagree. As I quoted earlier, Jesus told the Apostles that WHATEVER they bind on earth, WILL BE bound in heaven.

Authority was assumed, not granted. Damascus assumed the authority as did King James and all the others through the years that assumed the authority to assemble the bible.

In order for authority to be valid, it must be granted and not assumed.

The Catholic church was not “authorized” to assemble or edit the bible. The Catholic church “assumed” that authority.

Wrong. The Catholic Church received that authority from the Son of God. “Whatever” means whatever including assembling the bible.

No one will ever know what was supposed to be or not supposed to be in the bible.

If that is true, then you may be basing your faith and salvation on something completely invalid.

Still, the bible is the ultimate authority in the Christian faith, not the church.

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the “canon of Scripture” at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pinnacle and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church’s compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn’t know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an “inspired table of contents.” Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject “Cafeteria Catholicism”).

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said “the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.

 

[tml3625]

No, but I think it can be inferred. Certainly I don’t think anyone can prove that Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin by scripture alone. It is a belief within the Church that has been handed down through tradition. But certainly anyone claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin can be refuted by scripture alone.

I think a good argument is found as I mentioned before in how Jesus told John to look after his mother while he was dieing on the cross. Jesus is on the cross and can hardly breathe never mind talk. He chooses his words carefully. He said that for a reason so we would know something. If Jesus had sibling it would not be customary for him to send his mother to someone else. If Jesus never had sibling then Mary would not have been having sex unless Joseph was unable to have kids. We think Joseph died sometime between the presentation in the temple and Jesus’ start of his ministry. Joseph is not mentioned after the presentation in the temple or at the miracle of the wine. There is no indication that Mary remarried anyone after Joseph died.

No argument is needed. It doesn’t matter what Jesus said or didn’t say about Mary’s future living arrangement. Nothing can be assumed or inferred. Matt 1:25 is clear on this subject. Again I ask, why is virginity a virtue? Be fruitful and multiply was the law of the land.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No argument is needed. It doesn’t matter what Jesus said or didn’t say about Mary’s future living arrangement. Nothing can be assumed or inferred. Matt 1:25 is clear on this subject. Again I ask, why is virginity a virtue? Be fruitful and multiply was the law of the land.

Like I said it is a traditional belief of the church. Isn’t it true that your only purpose here is to prove the church is wrong? But like you said you can’t prove either way. So I guess you are wasting your time here.

Virginity is a virtue to God who in Revelations says he has saved a number of virgins. Virginity is saving oneself for a higher purpose and points out that there is something more important than sex. That is why priests do not marry or have sex. That is why single people should be celibate. Mary’s role as mother of God is accentuated by her remaining a virgin. She remains set apart for the purposes of God which is to bring forth the savior of the world. This bringing forth the savior of the world doesn’t end at child birth but continues her whole life. And even now she still is doing it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Matt 1:25 is clear on this subject.

Actually, it doesn’t. I already addressed that and I also addressed your rebuttal.

 

[tml3625]

Like I said it is a traditional belief of the church. Isn’t it true that your only purpose here is to prove the church is wrong? But like you said you can’t prove either way. So I guess you are wasting your time here.

Virginity is a virtue to God who in Revelations says he has saved a number of virgins. Virginity is saving oneself for a higher purpose and points out that there is something more important than sex. That is why priests do not marry or have sex. That is why single people should be celibate. Mary’s role as mother of God is accentuated by her remaining a virgin. She remains set apart for the purposes of God which is to bring forth the savior of the world. This bringing forth the savior of the world doesn’t end at child birth but continues her whole life. And even now she still is doing it.

I know it is a traditional belief of the church however that belief contradicts the fact contained in Matt 1:25. The church cannot dispute or deny this fact. The church shouldn’t pick and choose what to believe or not to believe and it shouldn’t create a belief. God saves criminals also. A priest’s celebacy was created by the church, not Jesus, the founder of the church.

 

[Pons]

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

If you were indeed an Orthodox Christian you would know this is the oldest tradition regarding the brethren of the Lord.

 

[grndslm]

• @inkaneer: Why must you create a fallacious argument that… because there are only two apostles named James, and each of them were not brothers of Jesus, then there can be no possible James who was the brother of Jesus? Have you never heard of James the Just, who was the HEAD of the Early Jewish-Christian Church?? He was most assuredly not an apostle that followed Christ Jesus.
• Don’t you think it’s odd that a person not following Jesus is then given the AUTHORITY to lead the Church??
• In Matt 1:25, we can all agree that you cannot deduce ANYTHING from this statement… but it is fishy that Matthew would even mention it if they NEVER “knew” each other or NEVER “had relations”.
• The term brother — Surely, lots of times it is used to mean spiritual brother, but is there really NO USAGE in the Bible, of the term brother, in the same sense that we know the term brother to be??
• If you want to nitpick about Jesus being THE son of Mary, why not use that same standard against Paul, who was the earliest “eyewitness” to all these events? Paul claims James to be THE brother of Jesus. Or what about Luke’s claim that Jesus is THE firstborn?
• And if you want to go to outside sources as having some bit of truth… what does the Gospel of Thomas actually say about James?
• I will admit that the idea of Jesus telling John to watch over his mother is about the best argument FOR the perpetual virginity of Mary. But, as somebody else already mentioned… perhaps it has to do with his real family rejecting him or thinking that he’s crazy. The Bible does speak of this. It’s not too far fetched, considering James the Just had to see the Resurrected Jesus before he became a “Jewish-Christian” and led the Early Church.

 

[Major_Tom]

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.

So, even if the first generation ‘brother’ kept his mouth shut, future generations might not? Yeah, I’ll grant, that’s a good point.

 

[PraiseB2God]

Regarding the whole issue of “until” in Matt 1:25, consider these other verses (with the help of religion-cults.com/mary/virgin.htm):

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

So, once the enemies are a footstool, he’d no longer be at the right hand of the LORD?

Some other verses are cited, too.

I am baffled by people thinking they can use a modern understanding of the word “until” and think it absolutely, must mean the same as it meant (in the original language) about 2000 years ago in a different culture. Has it ever occurred to some that the word “until” may not be the proper word at all, but the closest possible word to use? As someone who speaks more than one language, I often find in any of my languages that sometimes it is lacking a word that another language has that fits perfectly. When I looked up a French translation of Matt 1:25, the point comes across very clearly that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before she had Jesus, with the aim of making it clear that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. There was no hinting that he might have been with her afterwards; the whole point was to establish Jesus’ divinity.

There is every reason to believe that those who wrote the Gospels believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. It was a belief up until the New Testament was compiled. (Ha! Another use of the word “until” meaning that it didn’t change afterwards!) It was the belief of even Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers.

There is nothing logical in assuming that a belief that was held by those who chose the books of the Bible, those who were closest in time to Jesus and Mary, would have somehow been wrong and that people 1900+ years down the road, relying on the Bible alone, are understanding the words correctly.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I know it is a traditional belief of the church however that belief contradicts the fact contained in Matt 1:25.

This has already been addressed and shown that it is your understanding of this passage which is incorrect.

The church cannot dispute or deny this fact. The church shouldn’t pick and choose what to believe or not to believe and it shouldn’t create a belief.

Doesn’t the bible call the Church the pillar of the faith and the defender of the truth from which no falsehood can arise? Doesn’t that same bible also warn against the private interpretation of scripture?

God saves criminals also. A priest’s celebacy was created by the church, not Jesus, the founder of the church.

And didn’t the founder of that Church give unlimited authority to His Church?

 

[inkaneer]

In regards to the authority to assemble the bible. God didn’t authorize anyone to assemble or edit the bible. Authority was assumed, not granted. Damascus assumed the authority as did King James and all the others through the years that assumed the authority to assemble the bible. The Catholic church was not “authorized” to assemble or edit the bible. The Catholic church “assumed” that authority. No one will ever know what was supposed to be or not supposed to be in the bible. Still, the bible is the ultimate authority in the Christian faith, not the church.

I think one must recall the reason why we have a Bible today whereas for the first 400 years of christianity there was no Bible. Of course the scriptures, both old and new were around before the Bible was put together and various lists were circulated as to which writings were to be included. Not all of these lists had the same books but eventually St. Athanasius in about 348 AD compiled a list of books that would later became what we know today as the Canon of scripture. But what was the reason for codifying the scriptures? It was not to produce a self stcanon of udy guide to christianity which is what protestant denominations have perverted it often doing great violence to the Gospel in the process. Instead the purpose of codifying the scriptures was liturgical. It was to assemble those writings inspired by God into one volume so that individual churches would know which writings were worthy to be read in the Divine Liturgy of the Mass. Note that the big heresy, or one of them, at the time was Gnosticism. Gnosticism had its own writings and confusion abounded as to what writings were inspired and which were not. Some of these writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Appocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc. are known today and subjects of TV programs such as the Lost Books of the Bible. The fact is they were never lost, they were excluded because they were not inspired.

So by what authority did the church have to do this? The church was the depository of the Gospel message and therefore had the duty of preserving that message. To do this the church was delegated certain power among which was the power to bind and loose. The church utilized this power to bind the scriptures. The canon was first bound by the ordinary magisterium and then later, due to the violence inflicted on the scriptures by the protestant revolt, also bound by the Council of Trent.

No authority was assumed. Authority was delegated. Scripture is abundantly clear on that. Peter was given the auhtority to bind and loose onearth as well as in heaven. Think about that. How many people can you name who can bind something in heaven? The president of the United States wields tremendous power but even he does not possess the power to bind in heaven. But that fisherman from Galilee and his successors can because Jesus said it and the scriptures prove it.

 

[simspt]

still, the bible is the ultimate authority in the christian faith, not the church.

the gospels are the tradition of the church.

 

[inkaneer]

Still, the bible is the ultimate authority in the Christian faith, not the church.

This is odd coming from someone who professes to be “ORTHODOX”. Maybe your ‘orthodoxy’ is only alleged and not the orthodoxy of some of the Eastern Churches who also proclaim Oral Tradition as authority. Your statement is one we see coming from sola scripturists who have no relationship to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, I do believe that you are not ‘Orthodox’ but rather someone who is, at best, a member of a sola scripturist protestant sect. Now my response to you is very simple. As a sola scripturist, which you are if you made that statement, all you have to do to prove your statement is show me the passage in scripture that definitively proves your statement. As a sola scripturist you impose a limit on yourself to only the scriptures as your authority. So where is this found in the scriptures? The fact is it isn’t for if it was you would have posted it. Some sola scripturists want to think that Paul’s words in 2 Timothy3:16 proves sola scriptura. This is the famous “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable…” verse but Paul’s words stop well short of saying that “only” scripture is profitable and would also contradict his words in 1Timothy 3:15 where Pauls calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth. If sola scriptura was indeed true Paul would have to call scripture the pillar and foundation of truth not the church. This sola scriptura idea was invented in the 16th century. It is a tradition of man and we know the man who invented it. His name is Martin Luther.

 

[grndslm]

No authority was assumed. Authority was delegated. Scripture is abundantly clear on that. Peter was given the auhtority to bind and loose onearth as well as in heaven. Think about that. How many people can you name who can bind something in heaven? The president of the United States wields tremendous power but even he does not possess the power to bind in heaven. But that fisherman from Galilee and his successors can because Jesus said it and the scriptures prove it.

ACTUALLY Jesus gave that “authority” to ALL his apostles, not JUST Peter.

And Jesus did NOT give that authority to Peter’s or ANY of the apostles’ successors.

Show me ONE verse where Jesus says that successors to the apostles get ANY authority whatsoever.

And what about the Gospel of Thomas?? What makes you think that it ISN’T the Word of the Lord?? OHH… I remember… because it didn’t fit with the agenda of the MEN compiling the books. At the beginning of this thread, Catholics were trying to convince Protestants NOT to believe in the Bible, because the authors had an agenda, which is true… the translators have had an agenda… and so have the ones compiling all the NT books into the Holy Bible.

Let’s take a look at one line from the Gospel of Thomas, and then we can discuss who the first pope was…
Gospel of Thomas 12:

The Disciples said to Jesus, “We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “No matter where you come it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist.”

EVERY book that is currently in the NT has some heavy Pauline influence. I’m tired of the Pauline biased outlook. Paul never even met Jesus, for Peter’s sake!!

 

[Pawel_J]

Mary being a perpetual virgin is confirmed in the scripture. There is a couple of scripture passages that say Jesus had brothers. But what some people don’t know is that the Hebrew word for brother is the same Hebrew used for cousin or nephew or relative.

Gospels were written in Greek, not in Hebrew.