Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[Jimmy_B]

c’tnd.
It may indeed have been strange. But that’s what He did. To argue from this there were no brothers is to deny the plain declaration of Scripture to the contrary.

It was. See the references above. Up until the time of His resurrection His brothers had not believed on Him. After the resurrection, at least one, and by the implication of the gospel writer all, of His brothers came to believe in Him.

Indeed, He was the legal son of Joseph, though mistakenly believed to be the biological son of Joseph (understandably). Therefore, per this same gospel writer’s pen, Jesus had brothers.

Hello again Chris… good couple of posts, this one and #56. I don’t agree with much of you posted and I will put together a response to both posts…stand by.

Peace brother! ,

Oops…I forgot, that term and similar ones like it, are reserved for biological brothers only…I hope you don’t mind…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Consider this - Joseph was planning to repudiate her utterly. Why? Because he knew that Another had prior claim on her, which must be the case if she was bearing a child not of Joseph. He just thought it must be another human and not the Almighty Himself.

A CLAIM on her? No, he thought she had sex with someone else.
But the angel in a dream sets it straight. She is HIS wife. He can TAKE her as his wife because she has not had sex with someone else.

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Now show me where it says anywhere that she was the wife of the Holy Spirit? It does not exist. You know it does not. Anyone who reads the Bible knows it does not.

And what about Mary’s reaction to the angel? She says ‘how can this be, I know no man.’ As a female myself, I can tell you NO engaged woman would hear that she was to bear a son - who, remember, she hadn’t yet been told would be divinely conceived - and say ‘how can it happen’? Engaged women KNOW how babies are made! MARY knew how babies were made - you need a man, as she says to the Angel.

Lily, she says that she will have what?

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Son of the Highest. The “throne” of his father David…so Mary simply asks, “how can this be since I a virgin”…a much more reasonable response then Sara, wouldnt you say? She was a virgin. But the context is everything, if it had only been a baby you might have a slight case for her response but she did not get how Joseph fit into what the angel was describing.

If Mary and Joseph were expecting, in the normal course of events, to consummate the marriage, with resulting children, she would’ve wondered how a child of herself and Joseph could be the son of God perhaps, but she wouldn’t have been wondering how the child would be conceived.

EXACTLY, do not seperate the two, you have to use the whole context, I see you know that but are uncomfortable losing one of the few verses that support a view not found in scripture…

Fact is she and Joseph were planning a celibate marriage.

No, and thats not what happened.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Furthermore, Jesus was Divine! He came for one reason and one purpose only. HE HAD NO BROTHERS AND SISTERS. Geez…I have some swamp land for you to buy in florida…

Jesus having brothers has nothing to do with his divinity. It has everything to do with Joseph and Mary having at least six other children…

 

[Jimmy_B]

However, according to the apostle Paul, post resurrection He appeared to various individuals. At least one of them was His brother James.

1 Corinthians 15:7
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles
Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.…

Hello again Chris,

This is where you are wrong buddy…take a concordance and look at every reference to James’ mentioned in the New Testament (I did) and you will learn the their exists only two James’ in the entire New Testament. Both James’, can be clearly identified and they are not the biological brothers of Jesus.

I have already written about this before, a while back, so I still have every James’ cite on my computer, in chronological order and I will post them here, if you would like. James is the weakest part of the “Jesus had biological brother” argument.

1. James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21)
2. James, the Apostle and the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3).

One cannot understand the Bible, if viewed, one verse at a time and out of context, as it appears you do. This is how bad personal interpretation of the Bible occurs. This is why there exists today 36,000 + denominations, 36,000 different interpretations of the Bible. They cannot not all be right, this is not possible. If we all agreed, there would be one Christian religion.

In my opinion, I think that your Bible beliefs and many others here is more shaped by the context of their faith and those in their particular denomination, than by the context of the bible itself and Christian history.

The blind leading the blind.

Peace

 

[Jimmy_B]

Christ,

Do you believe that one Bible verse conflicts with another or that exist conflict in the Bible?

For “Protestants”, the Bible has to conflict or be cited out of context to support many of their views, which are in error. There is no conflict in the Bible, when understood and viewed in context. We Catholics are helped in our understanding of the Bible, by Christ’s Catholic Church, which is guided, infallibly by the Holy Spirit. Just because you got some of right, don’t assume that you got all of it right.

The Bible is a “Catholic Book” and it all supports Catholicism!

 

[NDfan]

Hello again Chris,
This is where you are wrong buddy…take a concordance and look at every reference to James’ mentioned in the New Testament (I did) and you will learn the their exists only two James’ in the entire New Testament. Both James’, can be clearly identified and they are not the biological brothers of Jesus.

I have already written about this before, a while back, so I still have every James’ cite on my computer, in chronological order and I will post them here, if you would like. James is the weakest part of the “Jesus had biological brother” argument.

1. James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21)
2. James, the Apostle and the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3).

One cannot understand the Bible, if viewed, one verse at a time and out of context, as it appears you do. This is how bad personal interpretation of the Bible occurs. This is why there exists today 36,000 + denominations today, 36,000 different interpretations of the Bible.

In my opinion, I think that your Bible beliefs and many others here is more shaped by the context of their faith and those in their particular denomination, than by the context of the bible itself and Christian history.

The blind leading the blind.

Peace

OK Jimmy let’s identify the James’ of the NT:

1. James son of Zebedee and brother of John. An Apostle and also killed by Herod.
2. James son of Alphaeus. Also an Apostle and also referred to as James the younger.
3. James half-brother of Jesus, brother of Jude, leader of Jerusalem council, and author of the letter of James.
4. James father of the apostle Judas, not Iscariot
5. James son of a certain Mary, perhaps the same as the son of Alphaeus.

So there are at least 3, maybe 4, possibly 5. But not only 2.

PEACE

 

[Righteousone]

Jesus having brothers has nothing to do with his divinity. It has everything to do with Joseph and Mary having at least six other children…

Why do only non-Catholic Christians think this? Even most Protestants don’t think this. Do you actually think Mary, Blessed Virgin, Queen of Saints, Queen of the Universe, Mother of God, would actually have more children, never mind relations with Joseph, a man who was old enough to be her grandfather??

 

[NDfan]

Why do only non-Catholic Christians think this? Even most Protestants don’t think this. Do you actually think Mary, Blessed Virgin, Queen of Saints, Queen of the Universe, Mother of God, would actually have more children

Yes

never mind relations with Joseph, a man who was old enough to be her grandfather??

How do you know Joseph was that old?? And don’t even try to use the infancy Gospel of James which by the way was declared by the church to be heretical in the second century.

 

[LilyM]

Son of the Highest. The “throne” of his father David…so Mary simply asks, “how can this be since I a virgin”…a much more reasonable response then Sara, wouldnt you say? She was a virgin. But the context is everything, if it had only been a baby you might have a slight case for her response but she did not get how Joseph fit into what the angel was describing.

Joseph was himself descended from David remember - of course a biological child of the two of 'em would have fit perfectly into what the angel said and would’ve had David for an ancestor. Remember David himself writes in the Psalms about being called God’s son, so that title didn’t automatically mean divinity.

See, the Jews never believed and still do not believe that the Messiah will be divine, and many have pointed out that Isaiah used a word that can simply mean ‘young girl’ as well as ‘virgin’. So the Messiah according to them is not necessarily to be a virgin birth either.

In view of all of this, if Mary had been expecting to consummate her marriage with Joseph and have a child it would’ve made perfect sense that that child could be the Messiah - that is, until she queries Gabriel about having no husband (and clearly no intention of ever HAVING a child with Joseph in the future). Only THEN Gabriel says the child will be conceived of the Holy Spirit.

EXACTLY, do not seperate the two, you have to use the whole context, I see you know that but are uncomfortable losing one of the few verses that support a view not found in scripture…

It’s you who don’t appreciate the full context of the Annunciation - you fail to look at these verses in light of Jewish tradition about the Messiah and so forth.

No, and thats not what happened.

Oh yes it is.

 

[Elric]

Matthew 1:24-25
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

How does this scripture work with Mary remaining a virgin? Why would Mary and Joseph, a devout Jewish couple, ignore the Jewish tradition that believes that marital sex strengthens the bond between a couple? Mary and Joseph would have also been aware of what Genesis 1:28 states, “Be fruitful and multiply”.

Do I need to list Jesus’ brothers for you here? Open your Bibles and it will be clear to you that Jesus did have brothers. Biblical and other evidence shows that Mary and Joseph were, in many ways, a conventional Jewish couple of their time and place, and seeing them in that way helps puts Jesus’ life and experiences in context. Would a sexless marriage be the happy relationship that God intends to portray as an ideal?
God Bless!

Maybe they didnt have such a happy marriage. Please correct me if I am wrong (which I very well could be) but Joseph doesnt get that much of a mention in the gospels, especally later in the life of Jesus.

Its quite possible that issues within the marriage (ie: no relations) are the cause of that. Not every marriage is a good/happy one, it certainly would have been true back then as well.

 

[Righteousone]

Mary was chosen for one reason and one reason only…to give birth to the Son of God. That’s it. period.

 

[LilyM]

Mary was chosen for one reason and one reason only…to give birth to the Son of God. That’s it. period.

And I suppose He was raised by wolves after that until He was 30? He had no mother to play an instrumental part in the beginning of His ministry by instigating the Miracle at Cana (it was Mary, remember, who first noticed the wine and told the servants to obey Him)?

There was no woman following Him to the very foot of the cross so that her own heart could be pierced by a sword alongside His? He gave His beloved disciple to nobody to be her son and his mother? He gave His Holy Spirit to Mary as well as the others (she was there at Pentecost alongside them, remember) so SHE could help them continue His mission and build His Church, a task that surely continued to the end of her natural days.

It’s truly heartbreaking, your ignorance of how much of a role Mary really played in Jesus’ life and the life of the early Church. She most certainly did a whole heck of a lot more than just give birth to Him - it would be news to both Him and her that anyone thinks that was her only role.

 

[Jimmy_B]

And I suppose He was raised by wolves after that until He was 30? …

Good point and funny tooooo

 

[AgnosTheist]

I think Jesus had siblings because:

1. the gospels said so.
2. there is no evidence that jesus is god.
3. there is no evidence that mary is more than an ordinary human. therefore she gets horny too just like the rest of us. and being legally married, there is no reason why she shouldnt have sex with her husband. and get pregnant for it…and this goes back to #1 wherein the gospels say jesus had siblings.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think Jesus had siblings because:

1. the gospels said so.
2. there is no evidence that jesus is god.
3. there is no evidence that mary is more than an ordinary human. therefore she gets horny too just like the rest of us. and being legally married, there is no reason why she shouldnt have sex with her husband. and get pregnant for it…and this goes back to #1 wherein the gospels say jesus had siblings.

1. No they don’t…
2. Yes there is…
3. I find this comment offensive…

 

[LilyM]

I think Jesus had siblings because:

1. the gospels said so.
2. there is no evidence that jesus is god.
3. there is no evidence that mary is more than an ordinary human. therefore she gets horny too just like the rest of us. and being legally married, there is no reason why she shouldnt have sex with her husband. and get pregnant for it…and this goes back to #1 wherein the gospels say jesus had siblings.

Just like the rest of us huh? You think people are lower animals totally incapable of doing anything other than submitting to their baser instincts? Then why aren’t we still living in caves, eating raw food and walking everywhere? We’re made for and capable of better things, AT.

 

[Righteousone]

And I suppose He was raised by wolves after that until He was 30? He had no mother to play an instrumental part in the beginning of His ministry by instigating the Miracle at Cana (it was Mary, remember, who first noticed the wine and told the servants to obey Him)?

There was no woman following Him to the very foot of the cross so that her own heart could be pierced by a sword alongside His? He gave His beloved disciple to nobody to be her son and his mother? He gave His Holy Spirit to Mary as well as the others (she was there at Pentecost alongside them, remember) so SHE could help them continue His mission and build His Church, a task that surely continued to the end of her natural days.

It’s truly heartbreaking, your ignorance of how much of a role Mary really played in Jesus’ life and the life of the early Church. She most certainly did a whole heck of a lot more than just give birth to Him - it would be news to both Him and her that anyone thinks that was her only role.

I was talking about the birth only Ms. sarcasm, of course Mary raised him, but that wasn’t the point…hello??

 

[Righteousone]

Furthermore it’s about whether Jesus had brothers and sisters, and the answer is no, that Mary was here foer one reason only and that was to give birth to the Son of God AND NO ONE ELSE. Feel stupid now that I explained it to you?

 

[LilyM]

Furthermore it’s about whether Jesus had brothers and sisters, and the answer is no, that Mary was here foer one reason only and that was to give birth to the Son of God AND NO ONE ELSE. Feel stupid now that I explained it to you?

Not a bit. I would only feel stupid if you’d stated it properly in the first place. By the way you still haven’t stated it properly.

She was in fact put on earth to bear and raise (not simply give birth to) the Son of God and no other offspring, yes, but she was also put on earth to do a whole lot more besides.

You’re not doing your argument any favours by expressing yourself so poorly.

 

[reteeks21]

Not a bit. I would only feel stupid if you’d stated it properly in the first place. By the way you still haven’t stated it properly.

She was in fact put on earth to bear and raise (not simply give birth to) the Son of God and no other offspring, yes, but she was also put on earth to do a whole lot more besides.

You’re not doing your argument any favours by expressing yourself so poorly.

Don’t be surprised that he called you stupid. He has said as much to me before. Even if someone disagrees with you, they have no right to call someone stupid. In fact, when they point a finger at someone, 3 more are pointing back at them.