Did Jesus have siblings?

[inkaneer]

TO “grndslm” and “hellopeople”:
I refer you to Acts 1:15-26 where we see that the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

I disagree in part and I think we have been over this before. Any way I disagree that Matthias was an Apostle. I say he was only a bishop. He was the first non Apostle bishop. The book of Revelation limits the number of Apostles to twelve. See Rev 21:4

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Judas was not an Apostlesince he was never sent [He committed suicide befor the Great commission} Peter acknowledges as much when in Acts 1:17 he says of Judas:

“Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.” [Acts 1:17]

Other translations have it as a “share” in this ministry. The idea is that Judas was not a full fledged Apostle having missed out on the events in the upper room after Jesus resurrected and never received the Commission to go and teach the nations. Peter also says that Judas was numbered with them. He stops well short of saying that Judas was one of them, i.e. an Apostle, Notice also that after his election Scripture says of Matthias that he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. Again he is numbered with them but is he one of them. The fact that after the election of Matthias the verse in Act saying he was numbered also says there are still eleven Apostles. The twelth Apostle is Paul. Judas and Matthias were not Apostles.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Scripture clearly refers to Judas as one of the twelve Apostle …

[bibledrb]Matthew 10:2-4[/bibledrb]
… it also tells us that Matthias was to take the “apostleship” of Judas and was to be numbered with the other eleven Apostles …

[bibledrb]Acts 1:25-26[/bibledrb]
… doesn’t say anything about him being just a bishop.

 

[grndslm]

This type of calumny and misinformation is neither productive or welcome here on CAF. If you are just here to spread lies about our faith, you have come to the wrong place.

Right…

“You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says.”

… should have been read as…

You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says in regards to spirituality, which seems to extend to celibacy of priests, perpetual virginity, etcetera."

 

[Major_Tom]

I think that my position shows obedience to the instructions that Jesus give to His followers …[bibledrb]Matthew 10:14-15[/bibledrb]… on how we are to treat those who reject the faith.

Is there a time limit on this? Who’s to say that I might not convert if only you, Sir Knight, kept after me, so to speak?

Shouldn’t the Prodigal Son parable show us that it is never too late?

 

[Major_Tom]

If you are not a sola scripturist then what are you? At least if you were a sola scripturist you would be a Trinitarian not a Unitarian. You would believe that scripture was inerrant Unitarians as we know them today did not exist until 1830 AD. Among some protestant groups Unitarians are not even considered Christian. At best Unitarians present a picture of God as being a scizophrenic alternating between three modalities of Father Son and Holy Spirit. At worst Unitarians deny that Jesus was God. So which are you?

Easy…! Think about cutting back on the caffeine!

For the record: former Catholic… Unitarian for six months… have doubts of Jesus’ divinity… many more doubts about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church like a marionette… good enough for know, till we meet for coffee?

As far as picking and choosing far be it. The Protoevangelium of James is out there and in the early days of the church was considered in many localities to be inspired. But it never made it into the canon of scripture and Catholic teaching is not based on it.

Exactly. Picking and choosing. So it was sort of inspired, to some…? But not enough to make the cut? Teaching is not based on it… yet… this … teaching… is … based… on… it…? Among other things, granted, but still based on it. Maybe I’m schizophrenic after all.

Then there is the fact that nowhere in the early history of christianity does anyone claim to be a brother of Jesus nor does history record that anyone claim to be descended from anyone related to Jesus. That, as I posted before is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. If you want to prove the Catholic church wrong on this one then all you have to do is provide the evidence that proves a claim that anyone was descended from a brother or sister of Jesus. But no one can do it.

.

Well, James does, right? Don’t you claim that he is a half-brother? But clearly, in the BIble, it says James, Brother of Jesus many times, doesn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

many more doubts about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church like a marionette…

You can put that doubt to rest, MT, 'cause the HS does not guide the CC “like a marionette”.

So it was sort of inspired, to some…?

No. The CC does not claim that the Protevangelium of James was “sort of” inspired. :whacky:

Those that thought it was inspired were…wrong.

Teaching is not based on it… yet… this … teaching… is … based… on… it…? Among other things, granted, but still based on it

The teaching is based on Sacred Tradition.

Well, James does, right? Don’t you claim that he is a half-brother? But clearly, in the BIble, it says James, Brother of Jesus many times, doesn’t it?

Does it say James, son of Mary, anywhere in the Bible? (That is,* our* Mary, the Blessed Mother of our Lord)?

 

[hellopeople]

But with your approach, there is room for doubt. Just because somethings MIGHT be unlikely, doesn’t mean that it can’t be possible and your salvation is not assured because any verse that assures you of salvation MIGHT not have been the true Word of God.

With my approach, there is no doubt because with my approach, the bible was assembled by the authority of the Son of God. All of the teachings of the Church are assured to be correct by authority of the Son of God.

IF your approach is true (and there is a big IF there) then yes, there is no doubt and you are assured to be correct. If my approach is true, then we don’t actually know exactly what Jesus said or taught (we have a pretty good idea most likely though from the gospels) and we don’t know what is needed for salvation.

But, neither of our approaches are more valid than the other. So even if your approach assures that you are saved, it is quite possible that you are completely wrong. So I don’t really care what you have faith in…just because you have faith in it doesn’t mean it is true. And just because your faith has assurance of salvation built in does not mean it is superior to mine.

 

[Major_Tom]

You can put that doubt to rest…

Easier said than done, friend!

No. The CC does not claim that the Protevangelium of James was “sort of” inspired. :whacky:

Those that thought it was inspired were…wrong.

Just responding to Inkaneer’s post.

Does it say James, son of Mary, anywhere in the Bible? (That is,* our* Mary, the Blessed Mother of our Lord)?

No sir. But it does say brother, does it not? And the Catholic position is that he was a half-brother or cousin…?

 

[hellopeople]

TO “grndslm” and “hellopeople”:
I refer you to Acts 1:15-26 where we see that the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

I don’t think that passage proves anything actually. Matthias just becomes one of the twelve. This is likely to do with the fact that there are 12 tribes of Israel, so it was important to have 12 apostles. I don’t see anything about succession there.

I don’t know what that quote even means in your last sentence. Who said that the church had authority for 400 years? I don’t think that the church ever really had authority to speak for Jesus, other than those that knew Jesus personally (and really all they can do is recall events and speculate on things that Jesus did not talk about). After a generation or two, all the church really had were the gospels and epistles, as well as some hearsay. But the further removed from Jesus the church became, the more it started to be based on scripture and oral tradition, and the less valid it became (in my opinion at least).

 

[Major_Tom]

I don’t know what that quote even means in your last sentence. Who said that the church had authority for 400 years? I don’t think that the church ever really had authority to speak for Jesus, other than those that knew Jesus personally (and really all they can do is recall events and speculate on things that Jesus did not talk about). After a generation or two, all the church really had were the gospels and epistles, as well as some hearsay. But the further removed from Jesus the church became, the more it started to be based on scripture and oral tradition, and the less valid it became (in my opinion at least).

Make that two. Nicely said.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t think that passage proves anything actually. Matthias just becomes one of the twelve. This is likely to do with the fact that there are 12 tribes of Israel, so it was important to have 12 apostles. I don’t see anything about succession there.

I don’t know what that quote even means in your last sentence. Who said that the church had authority for 400 years? I don’t think that the church ever really had authority to speak for Jesus, other than those that knew Jesus personally (and really all they can do is recall events and speculate on things that Jesus did not talk about). After a generation or two, all the church really had were the gospels and epistles, as well as some hearsay. But the further removed from Jesus the church became, the more it started to be based on scripture and oral tradition, and the less valid it became (in my opinion at least).

If the Church never had authority to speak for Jesus, why then did Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not overcome it?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Is there a time limit on this? Who’s to say that I might not convert if only you, Sir Knight, kept after me, so to speak?

Interesting that you ask that question but scripture does not record any of the Apostles asking Jesus that same question. And in absence of such a question, the instructions of Jesus are very clear on what to do when someone rejects the faith and it doesn’t include to continue to “keep after them”.

Shouldn’t the Prodigal Son parable show us that it is never too late?

The Prodigal Son returned. The father didn’t go after him.

 

[Major_Tom]

Interesting that you ask that question but scripture does not record any of the Apostles asking Jesus that same question. And in absence of such a question, the instructions of Jesus are very clear on what to do when someone rejects the faith and it doesn’t include to continue to “keep after them”.

The Prodigal Son returned. The father didn’t go after him.

I can see that you are quite confident in your faith. I disagree with the tone in which you approach this entire issue, but that’s what makes this world interesting. We’re free to pursue our own course.

Godspeed.

 

[inkaneer]

Scripture clearly refers to Judas as one of the twelve Apostle …

[bibledrb]Matthew 10:2-4[/bibledrb]
… it also tells us that Matthias was to take the “apostleship” of Judas and was to be numbered with the other eleven Apostles …

[bibledrb]Acts 1:25-26[/bibledrb]
… doesn’t say anything about him being just a bishop.

Acts 1:26 says that Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles. If he was the twelth Apostle should he be numbered with the twelve Apostles not the eleven Apostles? And what about Paul? Scripture definitely says he is an Apostle. So according to you Judas was an Apostle as was Matthias and Paul. That makes 14 Apostles but Rev 21:4 says there were only 12. Now you got a contradiction in scripture where supposedly no contradiction should exist.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I can see that you are quite confident in your faith. I disagree with the tone in which you approach this entire issue, but that’s what makes this world interesting. We’re free to pursue our own course.

Godspeed.

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.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Acts 1:26 says that Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles. If he was the twelth Apostle should he be numbered with the twelve Apostles not the eleven Apostles? And what about Paul? Scripture definitely says he is an Apostle. So according to you Judas was an Apostle as was Matthias and Paul. That makes 14 Apostles but Rev 21:4 says there were only 12. Now you got a contradiction in scripture where supposedly no contradiction should exist.

I don’t claim to be a scripture scholar so I can not answer your question but the bible clearly calls Judas an Apostles – as well as Paul. That makes at LEAST 13 and not 12 without even bringing Matthias into the picture.

And while it does not directly say that Matthias was an apostle, it is strongly implied by saying that he took over “apostleship” of Judas. As to why they said he was
numbered with the eleven – it is because there were eleven of them present. Judas wasn’t there any longer. When he was picked, he was added to there number – which was 11 and not 12. He made the 12th. Earlier on, it even says that they are picking a REPLACEMENT for Judas who was an apostle.

 

[hellopeople]

If the Church never had authority to speak for Jesus, why then did Jesus promise that the gates of hell would not overcome it?

By Church I think he just meant a community of believers. I don’t think he meant a church as we know it today.

 

[PRmerger]

Easier said than done, friend!

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?

 

[PRmerger]

**Originally Posted by PRmerger **
Does it say James, son of Mary, anywhere in the Bible? (That is, our Mary, the Blessed Mother of our Lord)?

Major Tom responded:

No sir.

PR responds:
Thank you for acknowledging that, MT.

But it does say brother, does it not? And the Catholic position is that he was a half-brother or cousin…?

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?

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t claim to be a scripture scholar so I can not answer your question but the bible clearly calls Judas an Apostles – as well as Paul. That makes at LEAST 13 and not 12 without even bringing Matthias into the picture.

And while it does not directly say that Matthias was an apostle, it is strongly implied by saying that he took over “apostleship” of Judas. As to why they said he was
numbered with the eleven – it is because there were eleven of them present. Judas wasn’t there any longer. When he was picked, he was added to there number – which was 11 and not 12. He made the 12th. Earlier on, it even says that they are picking a REPLACEMENT for Judas who was an apostle.

I understand what you are saying. But I think you have to take Acts 21:4 into account as it is pretty definite in limiting the Apostles to 12. There is also Mt 19:28 in which Jesus says the Apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. So the number seems pretty well fixed at twelve. Interestingly Matthew’s gospel never refers to the Apostles as disciples of Jesus while John’s gospel never refers to them as being Apostles. So there may be some fuzziness about the terms of Disciple/Apostle. However, going just by the definitive meanings of the two word where ‘disciple’ means a follower and ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Then the Apostles were disciples of Jesus up to the time they were sent. Then once sent they became Apostles. The sending has to be the time of the Great Commission when Jesus sent them into the world to teach the nations. Judas never made it to that point. He committed suicide before that. So he was never sent. Matthias takes his place but since Judas wasn’t sent Matthias can’t succeed to what Judas never had, i.e. Apostleship. Here is another question related to Acts 1:25. Is it possible for someone to take over a Apostleship without being an Apostle? In other words could someone be a successor to an Apostle but not be an Apostle?