Did Jesus have siblings?

[Pawel_J]

Sir Knight,

I had to check twice to see the stated religion for Pawel_J when I read his post. How can he be truly a Catholic if he does not believe the Church teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin (Our Blessed Virgin Mary)?:knight2::knight1:

Do you think those who have not even heard about the dogma of perpetual virginity are better Catholics? I know many Catholics who do not know this or other dogmas. They think the Church speaks only about the virginity before the birth of Jesus. Most people simply do not care. They do not reflect upon such subjects. They simply go to church on Sunday, confess and receive communion at Easter and Christmas. That’s all. Are they better Catholics than those who try to think twice in order to understand? … and there are also people, who cannot believe something unbelievable, something they do not understand.

 

[charles_natale]

Mathew 13:55 states:

55"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Knowing that the church has stated that Mary was a perpetual virgin, where do these brothers come into place?

I understand that the words used for brothers ans sisters also included cousins. Also Joseph may have been previously married with children.

 

[inkaneer]

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.

Peter was given the power to bind and loose individually [See Mt 16] The Apostles as a group, to include Peter, were given that power [See MT 18]. The other Apostles only have that power if they act in communion with Peter. As for that power not being passed down I would think that that line of thinking is tremendously short sighted to say the least. For it says that God went through a lot of trouble to establish a church that was essentially a one generation wonder. Very short sighted of God to do that, I think. As for showing you a verse where Jesus gives authority to the Apostles successors I say that is a red herring if there ever was one. Show where do you find the the requirement for Jesus to do this? The fact is, there is no requirement for Jesus to do so. He gave the power to the Apostles and it was theirs to hand on to those who succeeded them. But scripture does detail the succession of Matthias to the office vacated by Judas.

[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…

You obviously have been watching the History Channel on cable TV. They love to portray conspiracy theory type programs even calling the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ one of the “Lost Books of the Bible”. Conspiracy theories are nice because you don’t have to provide any proof just ask questions and you will get certain people to agree. The real Apostle Thomas journeyed to India and left no writings and if he did they would probably not be in Greek. But the Gospel of Thomas was known by the early Church to be a Gnostic writing totally devoid of divine inspiration. That is why the writing that bears his name is not in the Bible.

[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!!

Really? Did Paul not meet Jesus on the road to Damascus? I think he did. If you are tired of Paul then you are tired of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as Peter, James and Jude. The Gospel message does not change among the writers for the source is the same.
[/quote]

 

[NHInsider]

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.

Sorry, but this is nonesense. If there is no authority behind the selection of Scriptures, if there is no “authorization” by God, then to suggest that the Bible is the authority is to say that we a ruled by a book that just “happened” to come together in a certain way - that we could just as easily be ruled by a book that included the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Thomas in place of the Gospels of Matthew and John - and that would be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT religion.

 

[NHInsider]

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.

Matthew 1:25 is absolutely not clear. It is clear that she remained a virgin before the birth of Jesus. It has been demonstrated - several times - that the word “until” does not mean “and then there was a change” - even in English, never mind in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew.

Your saying it, even repeatedly, doesn’t make it so.

 

[tml3625]

Matthew 1:25 is absolutely not clear. It is clear that she remained a virgin before the birth of Jesus. It has been demonstrated - several times - that the word “until” does not mean “and then there was a change” - even in English, never mind in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew.

Your saying it, even repeatedly, doesn’t make it so.

In your way of thinking then “behold, I am with you till the end of the world” also does not mean and then there was a change. Only till the end of the world and not after, correct?

 

[tml3625]

Peter was given the power to bind and loose individually [See Mt 16] The Apostles as a group, to include Peter, were given that power [See MT 18]. The other Apostles only have that power if they act in communion with Peter. As for that power not being passed down I would think that that line of thinking is tremendously short sighted to say the least. For it says that God went through a lot of trouble to establish a church that was essentially a one generation wonder. Very short sighted of God to do that, I think. As for showing you a verse where Jesus gives authority to the Apostles successors I say that is a red herring if there ever was one. Show where do you find the the requirement for Jesus to do this? The fact is, there is no requirement for Jesus to do so. He gave the power to the Apostles and it was theirs to hand on to those who succeeded them. But scripture does detail the succession of Matthias to the office vacated by Judas.

You obviously have been watching the History Channel on cable TV. They love to portray conspiracy theory type programs even calling the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ one of the “Lost Books of the Bible”. Conspiracy theories are nice because you don’t have to provide any proof just ask questions and you will get certain people to agree. The real Apostle Thomas journeyed to India and left no writings and if he did they would probably not be in Greek. But the Gospel of Thomas was known by the early Church to be a Gnostic writing totally devoid of divine inspiration. That is why the writing that bears his name is not in the Bible.

Really? Did Paul not meet Jesus on the road to Damascus? I think he did. If you are tired of Paul then you are tired of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as Peter, James and Jude. The Gospel message does not change among the writers for the source is the same.

Paul didn’t meet Jesus. He had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Look up Paul’s bio. He started out his adult life persecuting Christions.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Paul didn’t meet Jesus. He had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Look up Paul’s bio. He started out his adult life persecuting Christions.

Are you saying that Paul’s vision wasn’t real? Paul describes his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus several times in Acts of the Apostles. One of these times he relates that Jesus says to him, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles - to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” 26:15-18

Sounds like a pretty intense meeting - a life changing encounter - with Jesus to me. How can you say Paul didn’t meet Jesus?

As for the OP’s question about did Jesus have siblings - the answer is no. Church tradition, handed down from the Apostles themselves, has always held that Mary had no other children. If she did, Jesus wouldn’t have entrusted Mary to the Apostle John from the cross - she would have had her own children to take care of her. John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

 

[tml3625]

Are you saying that Paul’s vision wasn’t real? Paul describes his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus several times in Acts of the Apostles. One of these times he relates that Jesus says to him, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles - to whom I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” 26:15-18

Sounds like a pretty intense meeting - a life changing encounter - with Jesus to me. How can you say Paul didn’t meet Jesus?

As for the OP’s question about did Jesus have siblings - the answer is no. Church tradition, handed down from the Apostles themselves, has always held that Mary had no other children. If she did, Jesus wouldn’t have entrusted Mary to the Apostle John from the cross - she would have had her own children to take care of her. John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

A “vision” back then would be called a “dream” today. Not even close to a “meeting”. “But rise and stand upon your feet” seems to imply that Paul was laying down on the side of the road. Probably resting or sleeping. As to the sibling issue, I contend that Mary was not a lifelong virgin as per Matt 1:25. There is a reason that Matthew wrote that line. I’m not saying that being or not being a virgin is a good or bad thing. I don’t think that lifelong virginity in any culture is considered a virtue. A tradition is one thing, a fact is another. Jesus telling Mary to go with John does not imply or infer that Jesus did not have any siblings. There is scripture to support the fact that Jesus’s brothers were not believers. References to that issue is mentioned in earlier posts. Also, there is no record of the apostles “handing down” a “tradition” that Jesus had no siblings. The apostles had no way of knowing if Jesus had any siblings. They didn’t meet Jesus until Jesus was in his late 20’s to early thirties.

 

[tml3625]

Gospels were written in Greek, not in Hebrew.

Please site the passage that confirms that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I would like to read it. Thanks!

 

[mullenpm]

I thought that the Conversion of Paul in Scripture was well known but I suppose not.

tm1625, Paul was not sleeping along the side of the road and “dreaming” when the Lord spoke to him. He was riding his horse accompanied by other soldiers on the road to Damascus when suddently a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him…(Acts 9:4).

 

[fisherman_carl]

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 ‘fact’ that you are referring to is your interpretation of Matt 1:25
As I mentioned before that scripture only tells us what has happened up until Jesus was born so as to make emphasis to the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. It does not state what happens after Jesus was born. you are inferring what happens after as a fact when in fact you are making an assumption.

The church shouldn’t pick and choose what to believe or not to believe and it shouldn’t create a belief.

How do you know how the church came to believe this? Do you think they picked it out of the air? The church is founded by Christ when St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and declared the rock that Jesus would build his church on. The apostles were given the authority to bind heaven and earth, to forgive sins, to baptize, etc. This is really a question of authority. How do you choose what to believe? What gives you the authority to interpret the bible a certain way?

God saves criminals also.

I agree with that. He saved the thief on the cross didn’t he?

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

Says who? Says you? Where are your facts that say celibacy was not instituted by Jesus when Jesus himself was in fact a celibate.

“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
(Mathew 19:12)

 

[grndslm]

Peter was given the power to bind and loose individually [See Mt 16] The Apostles as a group, to include Peter, were given that power [See MT 18]. The other Apostles only have that power if they act in communion with Peter. As for that power not being passed down I would think that that line of thinking is tremendously short sighted to say the least. For it says that God went through a lot of trouble to establish a church that was essentially a one generation wonder. Very short sighted of God to do that, I think. As for showing you a verse where Jesus gives authority to the Apostles successors I say that is a red herring if there ever was one. Show where do you find the the requirement for Jesus to do this? The fact is, there is no requirement for Jesus to do so. He gave the power to the Apostles and it was theirs to hand on to those who succeeded them. But scripture does detail the succession of Matthias to the office vacated by Judas.

ALL APOSTLES were given the power to bind and loose. MT 18 specifically states “WHAT ANY TWO BIND”, so it shall be bound in Heaven… or something like that. It says NOTHING about acting in communion with Peter. If it does, PLEASE point it out to me.

That’s an interesting concept, tho. If someone gives you the keys to bind and loose things here on Earth as it is in Heaven… does that give you the “authority” to hand those keys to other people?? I guess so.

You obviously have been watching the History Channel on cable TV. They love to portray conspiracy theory type programs even calling the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ one of the “Lost Books of the Bible”. Conspiracy theories are nice because you don’t have to provide any proof just ask questions and you will get certain people to agree. The real Apostle Thomas journeyed to India and left no writings and if he did they would probably not be in Greek. But the Gospel of Thomas was known by the early Church to be a Gnostic writing totally devoid of divine inspiration. That is why the writing that bears his name is not in the Bible.

Well… I’m honestly tired of people claiming that there’s all these other books written about Jesus, but they don’t count. How would I know for myself?

At the same time… people are saying, “If people had any problems with these concepts, wouldn’t they have spoken about them? … wouldn’t they have written about them?” That’s the THING! They HAVE! There’s always more and more heretics!! Don’t they count? Why are their opinions always invalid just because you’ve got the keys to turn Heaven into Hell?

Really? Did Paul not meet Jesus on the road to Damascus? I think he did. If you are tired of Paul then you are tired of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as Peter, James and Jude. The Gospel message does not change among the writers for the source is the same.

I have no idea whether he saw him or not!! I do know that hallucinogens can give any AND EVERY man “visions”, however. Some that I would say are clearly influenced by the divine. But I’d like to read the other “dozens” of books written about Jesus. That’s all I’m gettin’ at. I don’t need somebody to tell me that only 5% of the books written are absolutely truthful.

 

[grndslm]

A “vision” back then would be called a “dream” today. Not even close to a “meeting”. “But rise and stand upon your feet” seems to imply that Paul was laying down on the side of the road. Probably resting or sleeping

To be honest… I thought that he fell off the horse, bumped his head, then saw this vision. But others here have stated that they believe he saw the Resurrected Jesus first, THEN fell off the horse. I haven’t seen the verse if one exists that specifies what exactly happened.

As to the sibling issue, I contend that Mary was not a lifelong virgin as per Matt 1:25. There is a reason that Matthew wrote that line. I’m not saying that being or not being a virgin is a good or bad thing. I don’t think that lifelong virginity in any culture is considered a virtue. **A tradition is one thing, a fact is **another.

EXACTLY!! And the tradition of the day, Mosaic Law, was to have as many children as humanly possible. Almost realized in Mt 1:25, but not quite, apparently. Nor in Luke’s reference of Jesus being her “firstborn”.

And don’t even get started on tradition being handed down thru the generations that “such and such” happened. Because the “bishops of Rome” and other clergy were getting married happily and living with wives until the 7th or 8th Century. And then all of a sudden, it’s “been that way since Jesus and Peter”… Sacred Tradition, where Paul merely recommends it as his own opinion.

Jesus telling Mary to go with John does not imply or infer that Jesus did not have any siblings. There is scripture to support the fact that Jesus’s brothers were not believers. References to that issue is mentioned in earlier posts. Also, there is no record of the apostles “handing down” a “tradition” that Jesus had no siblings. The apostles had no way of knowing if Jesus had any siblings. They didn’t meet Jesus until Jesus was in his late 20’s to early thirties.

EXACTLY!! There are lots of traditions that are just “handed down” all of a sudden. Just created out of faith and thin air even centuries past the compilation of the NT books.

And, yes… what would the apostles know about Jesus’ siblings, when they’ve only known him for three years since he turned 30?!? Not a whole lot, I’m sure. What would they have known about a Virgin Birth? Would the apostles have believed Jesus if he said his mother was impregnated by God?!?

In Luke, it can be inferred that the author had spoken to Mary, but knowing that the book was written close to 90 AD doesn’t give me much hope for an accurate transfer of 100% factual knowledge. That’s just me, tho. And even soo… since the authors of Matthew and Luke might know best what actually happened, I think their comments like “firstborn” and “didn’t know each other until Jesus was born” should be taken to mean what they most likely meant, upholding Mosaic Law.

 

[grndslm]

I must admit… the reason I’d like to see MORE than just these NT books with Pauline influence is because Paul had quite a different theory than James the Just, Brother of Jesus (most likely first cousin). Paul believed in salvation thru faith alone. James knew that if you truly had faith, the works would follow. Faith without works is empty faith.

Hence, my interest in His Story as it ACTUALLY happened. Just because Paul feels like Peter and the Apostles deserve more authority doesn’t mean it ACTUALLY happened. History would seem as if the Christian Church (note: I did not say Catholic) was non-authoritarian, excluding God as THE ONLY ONE in charge… not Jesus or Mary or the Apostles or whoever. Early Christians seemed to be more about following the Ten Commandments than the Hail Marys is all I’m gettin’ at.

Works > Faith

Hmm… I wonder what those other non-Pauline influenced authors wrote about…

 

[mullenpm]

*“Originally Posted by tml3625
…There is scripture to support the fact that Jesus’s brothers were not believers.” *

And this reference supporting the fact that Jesus had brothers and they were non-believers is where? How about an accurate Biblical citation - don’t just say it was posted elsewhere.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The whole question of authority of the pope over the entire church is really the defining issue here. This questioning of authority is nothing new. We see this where the Israelites questioned the authority of Moses. We see in Number 16:3 the same challenge for Moses that we see for the authority of the Pope today. Korah, one of the Levites speaks out against Moses and says,

“Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD’S congregation?”

This is the same battle cry of anti-Catholics. But in the bible we always see God instituting someone in charge of his people. We have Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jesus, Peter, etc. all being placed in charge. God has always put someone in charge to govern his people. And there have always been people to question theirs and God’s authority to do so.

 

[mullenpm]

Originally posted by grndslm:
“To be honest… I thought that he fell off the horse, bumped his head, then saw this vision. But others here have stated that they believe he saw the Resurrected Jesus first, THEN fell off the horse. I haven’t seen the verse if one exists that specifies what exactly happened.”

A verse exists – Acts 9 – Actually, I believe that the conversion story is noted in other books as well.

But here is Acts 9:3-5 (it doesn’t say he bumped his head or saw the Lord)

Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;…”

 

[fisherman_carl]

Moses passes his authority onto Joshua

“Then Moses said to the LORD,
“May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, set over the community a man
who shall act as their leader in all things, to guide them in all their actions; that the LORD’S community may not be like sheep without a shepherd.”
And the LORD replied to Moses, “Take Joshua, son of Nun, a man of spirit, and lay your hand upon him.
Have him stand in the presence of the priest Eleazar and of the whole community, and commission him before their eyes.
Invest him with some of your own dignity, that the whole Israelite community may obey him.
He shall present himself to the priest Eleazar, to have him seek out for him the decisions of the Urim in the LORD’S presence; and as he directs, Joshua, all the Israelites with him, and the community as a whole shall perform all their actions.”
Moses did as the LORD had commanded him. Taking Joshua and having him stand in the presence of the priest Eleazar and of the whole community,
he laid his hands on him and gave him his commission, as the LORD had directed through Moses.”
(Numbers 27:15-23)

We see Joshua being commissioned the new leader. This pattern of laying on of hands to commission and transfer authority is here in the OT. This is exactly what Jesus did with Peter. And what Peter did with his successor. And so on. This is a pattern throughout the entire bible.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Confirmations of the early church showing that St. Peter was given the authority over the Church from Jesus.

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Firmilian

“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

“[Pope] Stephen * . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).*