Did Jesus have siblings?

[Joseph_Smith]

Well as your catholic tradition holds no truth and the word of God does hold truth. When God forsaw the day this perversion would creep into the catholic church he gave us this scripture to denounce the imagaination of mary be with out children. So you fight is with your mind and God because i am only a messanger he gave the scripture and this be the final word.
In speaking about the Christ to some. His mother’s children are addressed directly by David. You know he was a prophet.

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalm 69: 6-9

Also God declared in this scripture that they are Marys children. Notice the exactness of God words here. That sword is really getting at something. Not only did Mave Children jesus had brothers. When God sword starts to bring forth truth it cuts to the heart of the issue does it not. So are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit make a mistake or that David lied here. This comfirms all i have said.

 

[lak611]

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalm 69: 6-9

These verses are referring to the nation of Israel, not Mary. Where do you get Mary from these verses? I don’t see any mention of Mary here. If you are Bible alone, where do you get that interpretation since it’s not in the Bible?

 

[YADA]

Your post does not even make sense. The Church does hold to a truth that does not change while protestant Christinaity has changed Christian beleif and practices significantly.

And it is from the Catholic Church that Scripture comes. You would have us believe that the Church falls into error in belief and practice while simultaneously compiling the 27 books of the New Testament.

So this Church [and the Bishops who lead it], that does not understand how to properly interpret the scriptures, is the same Church that could decide that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark , Luke and John were valid [divinely inspired] Gospels but the Gospels of Peter, Thomas and Philip were not.

The same Church that gave us the epistles of Romans and Galatians [as inspired by the Holy Spirit] but declared that other epistles were not.

The Council of Nicea around 390 AD was valid for the list of scriptures but invalid for other church teachings…

That is just nonsense; historically, contextually, logically and any other way…

 

[Zooey]

Some one said that they find it offensive that Mary might have had sex. lol I will assure you Mary had a mid wife also. Woman have no privacy. You know. I find it offensive that people are adding to the word of God. The word of God is more then clear that Mary has children and how. The word of God is profitable for the casting down of imagaination.

Would that it would cast down your imaginations!

How do you think Jesus got her he did not just apear in the manger he passed thru the birth canal. Mary has a normal deliver of a child. Mary was a woman. Jesus sukeled at her breast. I bet she even corrected him at times, she was a mother, Jesus was a baby just like all babies.

Just for your general information Mary can’t be a virgin after Jesus is born because the hyman is broke from the act of giving birth.
.

Ay de me!!:nope: Laddy, what is the world coming to, when a Nice Baptist Boy has such an unholy imagiination, as to be spending his time ruminating on these things.:tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

You prove nothing except your own foolishness, to be carrying on so!!!

 

[Zooey]

These verses are referring to the nation of Israel, not Mary. Where do you get Mary from these verses? I don’t see any mention of Mary here. If you are Bible alone, where do you get that interpretation since it’s not in the Bible?

http://bestsmileys.com/wink/2.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/wink/2.gif
It must be an Old Baptist Tradition!!!http://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gif

 

[Zooey]

Well as your catholic tradition holds no truth and the word of God does hold truth. When God forsaw the day this perversion would creep into the catholic church he gave us this scripture to denounce the imagaination of mary be with out children. So you fight is with your mind and God because i am only a messanger he gave the scripture and this be the final word.
In speaking about the Christ to some. His mother’s children are addressed directly by David. You know he was a prophet.

And me thinking he was the king of Israel!!

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalm 69: 6-9

Aye, **David **was indeed an alien to his mother’s children. If you recall, he (David) was in hiding for his life…

Also God declared in this scripture that they are Marys children.

Ummmmm…Not in this verse, laddy. Which verse is it, that says “Mary’s children”??
Oh!! Silly me!! That’s right!! It doesn’t say that, not any place!! Because Mary never had any other children!!!

Notice the exactness of God words here.

Aye, laddy, so it is; you needs be careful; you may cut yourself with it!!

So are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit make a mistake or that David lied here.

Nay, laddy; I’m going to tell you that you are greatly:nope: mistaken. Nearly as greatly mistaken, as you are greatly :whacky: confused!!

This comfirms all i have said.

Nay,:nope: laddy; it only confirms that you are a Baptist.

 

[Joseph_Smith]

There is one infallable truth that GOD is truth and that he does not lie not endorce none truth. In genesis one Satan was promised a that God is going to send a man born of woman to bruise the head of Satan. That is the only real reference to mary in the old testiment. But actually it did not state her name. Gods word on mary is she was a natural woman born in the condition of sin. God tells us we all it is appointed to men to die once then the judgement. Buy the sins of one man sin enter into all mankind. Sin is passed to the father blood line. Mary had a earthly father thus she died a natural death due to sin. I have not made this up. I love mary as much as anyone. But i love God more and his word is with out error.

 

[porthos11]

I love mary as much as anyone.

No you don’t and your previous posts prove it. Stop lying.

 

[Rye-Guy]

Nowhere there does it mention she would be born in sin. And what difference does it make if her name is not mentioned. Moreover, since this is the Blessed Virgin Mary (your own words) then why could the verses in Revelation in regards to a woman clothed with the sun also refer to her. Though her name is not mentioned, it is quite clear that the two verses speak of the same woman. Moreover, I thought this forum was about whether Jesus had siblings, not whether Mary was born without sin (the Imacculate Conception).

 

[YADA]

The angel declares Mary “Full of Grace” The word of God [as you say] tells us that every generation shall call Mary “Blessed”

You have never addressed the scriptural passages that identify the same individuals identified as the brothers of Jesus as being the sons of other parents [as in not Mary]. These scriptures are in the Word of God.

You state that sin is passed on through the father but scripture does not say anywhere the “sin is passed from the father to the child and not from the mother”

Even the early protestant reformers [Luther, Calvin and Zwingli] believed that Mary remained a Virgin after Jesus was born. The protestant revision of Christian belief on this matter is recent and not historical.

You quote scriptures in a paraphrase fashion, substituting words and changing meanings to suit your bias.

Why are you posting here and what is it you hope to gain?

 

[porthos11]

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalm 69: 6-9

Why don’t you read the earlier verses of this same psalm, which are also God’s inspired words? It says,

“O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee” v5.

So by your logic, God’s inspired Word declares, clearly, without ambguity, with a sharp sword cutting to the tissue, that JESUS JESUS WAS FOOLISH HAD SIN! There’s no getting away from this. It’s in the very same psalm.

Unless something was wrong with your initial premise to begin with.

 

[Zooey]

There is one infallable truth that GOD is truth and that he does not lie not endorce none truth. In genesis one Satan was promised a that God is going to send a man born of woman to bruise the head of Satan.

Genesis 3, actually.
And it does not say “born of a woman”, it says “her seed”. ( Pedantic, I know…Comes of growing up in the same house as an English teacher…)

That is the only real reference to mary in the old testiment.

Now, that is blatantly false. As any number of posters have all ready pointed out.

Gods word on mary is she was a natural woman born in the condition of sin.

Chapter & verse, please???

God tells us we all it is appointed to men to die once then the judgement.

non sequitur.

Buy the sins of one man sin enter into all mankind.

non sequitur.

Sin is passed to the father blood line.

Chapter & verse, yean…It doesnae say this in any Bible of mine!! :nope:

Mary had a earthly father thus she died a natural death due to sin. I have not made this up.

Laddy, laddy…Ye are strangely bewildered…:whacky: Total non sequitur.

I love mary as much as anyone.

I take leave to doubt that, yean. If this kind of trash talk is how you treat those you love,:nope: I wouldnae want to have ye to call me friend!!

But i love God more and his word is with out error.

That is a sensible, wise thing. But, I might suggest speaking a ***bit ***more kindly of the Mother of God. Since you claim to love the Lord Jesus Christ so much, simple propriety might lead you to speak softly of His beloved Mother…even if it galls you to do it.

 

[patrick457]

Actually, if you go to the Greek, Roman 16: 7 is 'Greet Andronicus and JUNIA (female, not Junias, male), kinspeople (NRSV say kinsmen, but the greek, goes to plural, masculine preference as it would in any male/female combination)… who are notable among the Apostles. Yup, that’s Junia. Personally I find it delightful to find a named woman who was in leadership at the apostle/bishop level .

Actually, that’s a debated problem. Because it is written as ‘Iounian’ in Greek, it is rather confusing if the passage refers to a male or female because of declension (Remember, when the New Testament was written, Greek did not have accent marks yet). If written with an acute accent on the penultimate syllable, the name is “Junia” (a woman’s name); if with a circumflex accent on the final syllable, it is “Junias” (a man’s). Some manuscripts of the New Testament even had ‘Julia’ in there.

But, just because Junia was said to be ‘notable among the Apostles’ doesn’t necessarily mean she is on the same level as the apostles. The text could also mean she is well-known among the Apostles for being a noteworthy Christian, but not necessarily one of them.

For example, in the Apocryphal Psalms of Solomon, the Jewish Captives were said to be ‘a spectacle among the gentiles’.
In Greek, the phrase ‘a spectacle among the gentiles’ is almost grammatically similar to the phrase 'who are notable among the Apostles’. Does that mean the Jews were Gentiles themselves since they are a spectacle AMONG the Gentiles?

But even if she did have the appelation of ‘Apostle’, that doesn’t change anything that the Church’s decision about women priests. Just because the Church practiced something in the past does not mean we could go now and practice it again.

 

[Joseph_Smith]

I want to draw your attention to verse 25 of matthew 1, “And knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son [Jesus]; and he [Joseph] called his name JESUS.”

Did you notice the word till. It means after she had Jesus Joseph and Mary had sex. Till in this scripture is a verb. It is the word of action.

(And knew her not)(till)(she had brought forth her firstborn son)
decleration action post qualifer

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines the word ‘till’ as heh’-oce meaning of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):–even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s).

The American Heritage Dictionary defines till as “up to the time of.”[xii]

For this scripture to be truth according to the heberw the action has to take place the wording and structure. The wording is deliberate and can mean nothing other then the completion of the act of closure. Meaning Joseph knew Mary as a woman.

Also this is required of them in order for them to be married according to jewish custom.

To put this into prospective Mary and Joseph knew one another before any angels showed and they loved one another and were engaged. They were going to get married and have childern. Then a angle shows up one day. What a turn of events.

Upon examination of the scripture there is one very good reference from proving the fact that mary had additional children.

Matthew 13:53-56 “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

As you can see by the two passages above, the local townspeople understood who Jesus, Mary, James, Joses, Juda and Simon were. They lived with them. They saw the boys grow. They knew them for the mother of Jesus and Jesus’ brothers.

By the way, the Hebrew’s understood that the name “brother” means that they are of the same stock and blood.

There is another important point that must be investigated. Everything that pointed to Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament. As we have already seen, Isaiah 7:14 declares that “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This does not say that Mary would forever be a virgin. Even Mary considered her selection for use of God, “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:”

Matthew 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ,”

For the statement to be true Joseph and mary have to have engaged in sex. A marrage in the heberw custom required the concermation not just the declaration. As also is required in most nations today. That is why you can have a marriage anulled today.

James the brother of Jesus is named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, along with three other brothers (Joseph [or “Joses”], Simon and Judas [Jude]) and at least three sisters unnamed (the most explicit reference to these sisters in the canon being found in Matthew 13:56, “Aren’t all his sisters with us?”).

The Gospels indicate that neither James nor his brothers were followers of their elder brother before his crucifixion, but after the resurrection they are mentioned among the group at prayer before Pentecost (Acts 1:14). Paul mentions that the risen Jesus appeared personally to James, which may explain the change in heart (1 Cor. 15:7).
So why did he apear to James, could it be because he was his half brother.

So, Scripture itself debunks the notion that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, never having had sexual intercourse. Again pagan echoes of the virgin goddess.

In reading the holy scripture one must also look beyond the surface of the scripture at the context and the custom of the day and the action and events. In the case of the apostles some of them were very educated in the languages. In there writing you see them refer to people with titles of lintage. simon son of bar-bone. But with James and the brothers of Jesus they do not do this. Can you blame them what would you call them. Could it be they did not want to error. That is most likly the reason. Well her is Jesus the Christ in here is his family. Are they all virgin born must have ran thru there minds at one point!
But it remains clear to God that we are all Jesus brothers who are of Christ. And we are not born of mary.

 

[runandsew]

I want to draw your attention to verse 25 of matthew 1, “And knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son [Jesus]; and he [Joseph] called his name JESUS.”

Did you notice the word till. It means after she had Jesus Joseph and Mary had sex. Till in this scripture is a verb. It is the word of action.

(And knew her not)(till)(she had brought forth her firstborn son)
decleration action post qualifer

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines the word ‘till’ as heh’-oce meaning of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):–even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s)

Why are we still arguing this point St. Jerome (see link) answered this exact subject clear back in 383 AD. Have you not read the Church fathers? Their writings may not be inspired like the Holy Scripture, but they give us a clue of what the early Christians believed. I would rather believe what the early christians believed, than things that were invented by Protestants some 1,500 years later.

 

[Joseph_Smith]

Maybe this will help you gain sight zooey.
Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowedge of sin.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
All
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
All
Romans clears up the fact of a sinnless mary.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Even Jesus died.

Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
This final scripture is altered in your bible.

 

[JoeyWarren]

G4773
συγγενής
suggenēs
soong-ghen-ace’
From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).

Mar_6:4; Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44; Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Joh_18:26; Act_10:24; Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7; Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21;

Of all the verses only two use Cousin the others use Kin is some fashion or another.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Yes Joseph Smith, you really need to read this:

Jerome’s Defense

 

[runandsew]

Maybe this will help you gain sight zooey.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
All
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
All
Romans clears up the fact of a sinnless mary.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Even Jesus died.

Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
This final scripture is altered in your bible.

In Romans 3:23 where it says “All men”, Jesus was 100% Devine and 100% man, so are you saying that Jesus sinned, because you say that “All” men have sinned?
Do new born infants sin?
Does a severly retarted man who doesn’t know right from wrong sin?
These are all men, are you saying that all of these people also sin.

And the fact that she was sinless doesn’t pertain to the subject of did Jesus had siblings, please stay focused on the subject.

And as for Exodus 20, please do not bring different issues into this thread, if you want to discuss how Catholics group the 10 commandments by combining similar sins (having different gods, and building idols and worshiping them), and how Protestants combine different sins (coveting your neighbors goods, and coveting his wife), then that would need a new thread.

But if you do want to switch the subject, then I would recommend “Sola Scriptura” this is the main issue that divides Catholics and Protestants, because if Sola Scriptura is true then Protestantism is true, but if it is false, the Protestantism is false.
All your issues with the Catholic Church is derived from this issue, Does the Catholic Church have the Authority to infallibly interpret the inspired and infallible Bible. If it does, then all these issues you have are mute.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well as your catholic tradition holds no truth and the word of God does hold truth. When God forsaw the day this perversion would creep into the catholic church he gave us this scripture to denounce the imagaination of mary be with out children. So you fight is with your mind and God because i** am only a messanger** he gave the scripture and this be the final word.
In speaking about the Christ to some. His mother’s children are addressed directly by David. You know he was a prophet.

Haven’t we reached out quota on Messenger named “Joseph Smith” yet???

“Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” -Psalm 69: 6-9

Also God declared in this scripture that they are Marys children. Notice the exactness of God words here. That sword is really getting at something. Not only did Mave Children jesus had brothers. When God sword starts to bring forth truth it cuts to the heart of the issue does it not. So are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit make a mistake or that David lied here. This comfirms all i have said.

You see, Joseph, the thing about Exegesis and Apologetics, when someone brings up a counter-point to your arguement, you need to refute it with valid points, not vague insinuations.

We’re not going to chasing after your red-herring on the Catholic Church and it’s supposed Apostacy (you know, you’re calling our Lord a liar when you do that ). Instead, why don’t you refute that James and Joses are the sons of the wife of Clopas and not Mary. Or the fact that Simon is a Canaanite, and so on.

Then we can deal with each other in a way that will let charity prevail…