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

[Righteousone]

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.

I never EVER said she WAS stupid, I said don’t you FEEL stupid. But well, coming from a non-Catholic, I expect you to interpret it incorrectly as you’ve been doing for the past 500 years.

 

[Righteousone]

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.

You are picking and prining here. You very well knew what I meant. My priest told me the same thing. You are outnumbered.
I only meant the part of Mary BEARING ONLY ONE CHILD, THE SON OF GOD AND NO OTHERS…geez…

 

[reteeks21]

I never EVER said she WAS stupid, I said don’t you FEEL stupid. But well, coming from a non-Catholic, I expect you to interpret it incorrectly as you’ve been doing for the past 500 years.

What is the difference? If a friend or someone who assumes they have authority over someone else asks you that same question during a very intense conversation, how would you take it? And my comment was directed to her, not you. And your final comment to me proves me right when I told her how you have treated myself and others you disagree with.

 

[Righteousone]

What is the difference? If a friend or someone who assumes they have authority over someone else asks you that same question during a very intense conversation, how would you take it? And my comment was directed to her, not you. And your final comment to me proves me right when I told her how you have treated myself and others you disagree with.

Frankly, you are the one who is disagreeing or should I say “protesting” what others here are saying.
If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen…

 

[StevenFrancis]

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

Jesus was born to Mary, who is perpetually virgin as the arc of the New Covenant, so it wouldn’t be possible for Him to have had bilogical brothers.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Elric]

Jesus was born to Mary, who is perpetually virgin as the arc of the New Covenant, so it wouldn’t be possible for Him to have had bilogical brothers.

Blessings,

Steven

Well the jury still seems to be out on that.

What I would like to know is what exactly is the big deal if Jesus had siblings?

Would it change his message/teachings?

Would it change your faith or rather make you question your faith?
(I mean “you” as a generic term that applies to everyone rather than one person)

Does it matter if Mary did not remain a virgin?

Personally I am not in either camp, I think that it is possible that he had siblings but I am also open to the idea that he didnt.

 

[YADA]

What I would like to know is what exactly is the big deal if Jesus had siblings?

Would it change his message/teachings?

Would it change your faith or rather make you question your faith?
(I mean “you” as a generic term that applies to everyone rather than one person)

Does it matter if Mary did not remain a virgin?

Personally I am not in either camp, I think that it is possible that he had siblings but I am also open to the idea that he didnt.

Does the concept of individuals walking the earth claiming to be the related [genetically] to the God/Man Jesus not cause you to consider what that might have meant for the struggling earthly church? Think of the controversies of the Da Vinci Code and other ‘fictions’ that many accept as “Gospel” Truth [Pun intended] Consider what these decendents of Jesus could / would do throughout time? And of course; then consider where are these decendents - these relatives of Jesus today? Is that a family tree that would have been ‘lost’? Hardly, so where are they ? …

While it is possible that Joseph was married before he married Mary and had children before. It is also possible that Joseph and Mary cared for nieces and / or nephews, young cousins, etc … I do not believe that Jesus had any blood related siblings [ie children of Mary] and scripture does not state any where that Mary had any children other than Jesus …

Scripture does refer to brothers in the same passage that calls Jesus the “son of the carpenter” … I accept that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Spirit, regardless of this clearly worded passage.

That all of mainline christianity believed Mary to be ‘ever Virgin’ up to the days of the ‘Enlightenment’ is powerful testimony to christian belief and practice. I hardly feel that the last 200 years of history +/-] is the proper look back at this belief …

 

[Elric]

Does the concept of individuals walking the earth claiming to be the related [genetically] to the God/Man Jesus not cause you to consider what that might have meant for the struggling earthly church?

Should it mean something?

It wouldnt suprise me in the slightest if people were doing that regardless. In fact I think that there were people going around making that claim.

How exactly does that change Christs message/teachings?

Think of the controversies of the Da Vinci Code and other ‘fictions’ that many accept as “Gospel” Truth [Pun intended]

That just shows that people are gullible, taking a fictional book (which is even presented as fiction) as fact is just silly. Its not the first time people have fallen for something and it wont be the last.

But does it change Christs message/teachings?

Consider what these decendents of Jesus could / would do throughout time?

What would they do?

Im guessing the same thing that others have done.

And of course; then consider where are these decendents - these relatives of Jesus today? Is that a family tree that would have been ‘lost’? Hardly, so where are they ? …

Why wouldnt they be “lost”?

They are not part of the message, their existance isnt really important.

While it is possible that Joseph was married before he married Mary and had children before. It is also possible that Joseph and Mary cared for nieces and / or nephews, young cousins, etc … I do not believe that Jesus had any blood related siblings [ie children of Mary] and scripture does not state any where that Mary had any children other than Jesus …

Now that is really a double edged sword, their existance isnt part of the message so there is no need to mention them. A lot of things are not mentioned in scripture, but that doesnt mean they didnt exist. They simply were not relevent to the story.

Scripture does refer to brothers in the same passage that calls Jesus the “son of the carpenter” … I accept that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Spirit, regardless of this clearly worded passage.

Thats great, would that opinion change if it was confirmed that Jesus had siblings?

That all of mainline christianity believed Mary to be ‘ever Virgin’ up to the days of the ‘Enlightenment’ is powerful testimony to christian belief and practice. I hardly feel that the last 200 years of history +/-] is the proper look back at this belief …

Well scripture doesnt state that Mary stayed a virgin (it kind of hints the opposite).

Besides that, you didnt answer my questions. But you did seem to suggest that there was a “cover up” done by the early church.

 

[davidcoit]

The Dogma of Marys perpetual virginity proclaims that Mary remained a virgin until the end of Her earthly life. If you believe otherwise your not a Catholic. St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Ephraem, St Jerome. St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria taught the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity. In fact in the early church to believe otherwise was considered a serious heresy.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley,and Ulrich Zwingli all agreed that Mary realized she was the Mother of God, and she did not desire to become the mother of man.

Introduction to Mary; The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion
Mark Miravalle
Queenship Publishing
IMPRIMATURE
Most Reverend Gilbert Sheldon
Bishop of Stebenville
Jan.12, 1993

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The word “bretheren” could be as broad as any who was an Israelite. The same way we apply the word “brother” to any fellow male member of the church.

As far as Jesus having biological brothers what about John 19:
[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
[27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

If Mary had other sons to go to why did John take Mary into his home? Shouldn’t have she gone to the home of one of Jesus’ other brothers?

 

[StevenFrancis]

Well the jury still seems to be out on that.

What I would like to know is what exactly is the big deal if Jesus had siblings?

Would it change his message/teachings?

Would it change your faith or rather make you question your faith?
(I mean “you” as a generic term that applies to everyone rather than one person)

Does it matter if Mary did not remain a virgin?

Personally I am not in either camp, I think that it is possible that he had siblings but I am also open to the idea that he didnt.

Actually, I don’t believe the jury IS still out on this one. Unless I’m mistaken, (and it would not be the first time, so I am prepared to eat crow), Mary’s perpetual virginity is declared Dogma.

As for the “big deal” part of it…Well… Mary is the arc of the new covenant. The pure vessel chosen by God to delivery Himself into earthly existence. Her womb, then was the Holy of Holies. She was not given to an ordinary marriage. Her and Joseph were chosen among all people, and trusted with the upbringing and protection of the Lord God on Earth. The Son of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus. The Christ. The Messiah.

If you look deeply enough into the Marian dogmas and tenets of the Church, what you’ll find is that they are not about Mary, so much, as they are about Jesus Himself. Most things are true of Mary, because OF Jesus. Of HIS importance.

You woudn’t have emptied out the arc of the old covenant to then fill the chest with some ordinary bread, a stick picked up from the ground, etc., and treated it like an ordinary chest. Although, that’s all it appeared to be. The items inside of the chest made it a sacred vessel, and it was protected. After delivering Jesus, Mary may have looked to the naked eye like a regular woman of the time, but she was a sacred vessel.

Her womb was the blessed vessel of the Lord, and her purity, both before, and after the Saviours birth, is important to the understanding of who/what Jesus was.

Just think about this for a while. Don’t answer right away or anything. Pray and think. I believe you’ll understand, if you just trace things out. There are also several great books that can illuuminate all of this. Of particular note is “Hail Holy Queen”, by Scott Hahn. If you spend some quality time in meditation and prayer on the roll of Our Lady in Christ’s story, she’ll guide you to the truth. If not…fair enough. You’ll at least have tried.

Peace to you,

Steven

 

[YADA]

Should it mean something?

Yes, it calls into doubt the divinity of Jesus … and sets up a scenario where others can claim divine knowledge etc … special hidden information [like the Gnostics and those who claim Jesus had a child … ]

It wouldnt suprise me in the slightest if people were doing that regardless. In fact I think that there were people going around making that claim.

Yes, and these are the same people who claim that Jesus had offspring with Mary Magdeliene

How exactly does that change Christs message/teachings?

Christ is unigue, and this changes or call to doubt the virgin birth the fact that Jesus is the Son of God - an action of the holy spirit - God incarnated into human history.

That just shows that people are gullible, taking a fictional book (which is even presented as fiction) as fact is just silly. Its not the first time people have fallen for something and it wont be the last.

**Presented as fiction [well yes and no] Dan Brown himself has implied otherwise and then there are those who also promote this fiction as fact … **

But does it change Christs message/teachings?

** Well St. Paul states that unless Jesus is God and unless he rose from the dead [in otherwords all that is foundational to Christian belief - virgin birth and all] our faith is in vain … JEsus is not just a ‘message’ though some have psotured that as a prophet [or teacher] Jesus’ message is wonderful … Christianity is mor than the message/teachings … it is life, eternal, a conquering of death … **

What would they do?

Promote secret knowledge see above

Why wouldnt they be “lost”?

You don’t think that persons [and I have seen lists of people purporting to be this godly royalty] who claim blood [genetic] ties tothe Man/God of all humanity would ‘forget’ that fact nor pass it along throughout time do you? NOr that they would sit on the sidelines of history without participatting. That they would continue to exert influence … after all they are related to God!!!

They are not part of the message, their existance isnt really important.

**But woud they see themselves as un-important - really?.. being related by blood to Jesus, the Christ, the King of Kings the Lord of Lords … human nature would take a diffferent view I think … **

Now that is really a double edged sword, their existance isnt part of the message so there is no need to mention them. A lot of things are not mentioned in scripture, but that doesnt mean they didnt exist. They simply were not relevent to the story.

But the origins of Jesus and those factors that affect his origins are … you read into silence your personal beliefs and biases in this matter …

Well scripture doesnt state that Mary stayed a virgin (it kind of hints the opposite).

Actually, I believe that scripture infers [your word ‘hints’] that she did in fact remain a virgin, sorry I disagree with yoru interpretation of the scriptural texts.

Besides that, you didnt answer my questions. But you did seem to suggest that there was a “cover up” done by the early church.

I did not suggest a cover-up by the early church … I noted that the belief that Mary was ever Virgin was widely held until the enlightenment period - ratehr late in Christian history … to be clear Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Henry VIII all believed in Mary as ever virgin

 

[Elric]

Actually, I don’t believe the jury IS still out on this one. Unless I’m mistaken, (and it would not be the first time, so I am prepared to eat crow), Mary’s perpetual virginity is declared Dogma.

Im just going by this thread as well as the general debate world wide. There doesnt seem to be any sort of agreement made, which is why I say it still seems as though the jury is still out.

As for the “big deal” part of it…Well… Mary is the arc of the new covenant. The pure vessel chosen by God to delivery Himself into earthly existence. Her womb, then was the Holy of Holies. She was not given to an ordinary marriage. Her and Joseph were chosen among all people, and trusted with the upbringing and protection of the Lord God on Earth. The Son of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus. The Christ. The Messiah.

Im not playing down her part or her significance, Her role was important.

But would it change the message if she didnt remain a virgin?

If you look deeply enough into the Marian dogmas and tenets of the Church, what you’ll find is that they are not about Mary, so much, as they are about Jesus Himself. Most things are true of Mary, because OF Jesus. Of HIS importance.

You woudn’t have emptied out the arc of the old covenant to then fill the chest with some ordinary bread, a stick picked up from the ground, etc., and treated it like an ordinary chest. Although, that’s all it appeared to be. The items inside of the chest made it a sacred vessel, and it was protected. After delivering Jesus, Mary may have looked to the naked eye like a regular woman of the time, but she was a sacred vessel.

Her womb was the blessed vessel of the Lord, and her purity, both before, and after the Saviours birth, is important to the understanding of who/what Jesus was.

Just think about this for a while. Don’t answer right away or anything. Pray and think. I believe you’ll understand, if you just trace things out. There are also several great books that can illuuminate all of this. Of particular note is “Hail Holy Queen”, by Scott Hahn. If you spend some quality time in meditation and prayer on the roll of Our Lady in Christ’s story, she’ll guide you to the truth. If not…fair enough. You’ll at least have tried.

Peace to you,

Steven

Im not saying that he had siblings, or that Mary wasnt a virgin. I have stated that I dont know, I think that its possible that he did have siblings (thats not suggesting that he did) and it is possible that he did not.

What I an asking/saying is: is it important to the message/teachings of Jesus?

Would it chang the message/teachings of Jesus?

Would it make people question their faith if Jesus had siblings?

Ultimatly, would it be a big deal if Jesus did have siblings?

For me personally, the answer to all of those questions is a definate NO.

Unfortunatly there are people (including on this thread) for whom the answer is YES and that is really of considerable concern, to me that suggests the possibility of mis-placed priorities.

 

[Elric]

Yes, it calls into doubt the divinity of Jesus … and sets up a scenario where others can claim divine knowledge etc … special hidden information [like the Gnostics and those who claim Jesus had a child … ]

Yes, and these are the same people who claim that Jesus had offspring with Mary Magdeliene

Christ is unigue, and this changes or call to doubt the virgin birth the fact that Jesus is the Son of God - an action of the holy spirit - God incarnated into human history.

**Presented as fiction [well yes and no] Dan Brown himself has implied otherwise and then there are those who also promote this fiction as fact … **

** Well St. Paul states that unless Jesus is God and unless he rose from the dead [in otherwords all that is foundational to Christian belief - virgin birth and all] our faith is in vain … JEsus is not just a ‘message’ though some have psotured that as a prophet [or teacher] Jesus’ message is wonderful … Christianity is mor than the message/teachings … it is life, eternal, a conquering of death … **

Promote secret knowledge see above

You don’t think that persons [and I have seen lists of people purporting to be this godly royalty] who claim blood [genetic] ties tothe Man/God of all humanity would ‘forget’ that fact nor pass it along throughout time do you? NOr that they would sit on the sidelines of history without participatting. That they would continue to exert influence … after all they are related to God!!!

**But woud they see themselves as un-important - really?.. being related by blood to Jesus, the Christ, the King of Kings the Lord of Lords … human nature would take a diffferent view I think … **

But the origins of Jesus and those factors that affect his origins are … you read into silence your personal beliefs and biases in this matter …

Actually, I believe that scripture infers [your word ‘hints’] that she did in fact remain a virgin, sorry I disagree with yoru interpretation of the scriptural texts.

I did not suggest a cover-up by the early church … I noted that the belief that Mary was ever Virgin was widely held until the enlightenment period - ratehr late in Christian history … to be clear Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Henry VIII all believed in Mary as ever virgin

 

[YADA]

Actually you did, in the opening comments of your original reply.

Because I asked if you could prove that Moses parted the RED SEA? Where did I say that the early church covered up something - a conspiracy - I said that the early church kept hidden information?

I actually do not know what you are talking about - perhaps I failed to express myself or you misunderstood what I meant … please provide the words … my first post in this thread I think was about the proof someone was expecting to see and I asked for the scientific or independent from scripture sources for several stories as noted above … is that what you took for ‘early church’ conspiracy? Sorry but I am confused by your comment

 

[Elric]

Because I asked if you could prove that Moses parted the RED SEA?

Sorry, you didnt ask me that. I am not sure where that actually came from.

Where did I say that the early church covered up something - a conspiracy - I said that the early church kept hidden information?

You didnt, nor did I say that you did.

Maybe “suggest” was the wrong term to use, But this passage:

“Does the concept of individuals walking the earth claiming to be the related [genetically] to the God/Man Jesus not cause you to consider what that might have meant for the struggling earthly church?”

Certainly gives reason for a conspirisy. If there were siblings of Jesus waking around (remember I never said that there were), then this sort of paranoia would certainly lead to getting rid of said siblings and/or mention of them.

I actually do not know what you are talking about

Yes I know, you seem to be under the impression that I believe there were siblings of Jesus. When I never said any such thing.

I said that there was a possibility, which is not actually stating that I believe that there were, but I dont know. I am also open to the idea of Marys perpetual virginity, but again I dont know.

• perhaps I failed to express myself or you misunderstood what I meant … please provide the words … my first post in this thread *

I said your “Original reply”, I meant your original reply to my post. But thats moot now as I have posted your comments.

But you didnt answer the questions of that post:

Would it change his message/teachings?

Would it change your faith or rather make you question your faith?

Does it matter if Mary did not remain a virgin?*

 

[YADA]

But you didnt answer the questions of that post:

Would it change his message/teachings?

It might not change his message but it could cast a shadow over who Jesus is [or was] and the veracity of Jesus as the Man/God

Would it change your faith or rather make you question your faith?

If JEsus has siblings what would make Him unigue … how would one consider the whole idea of the virgin birth … we already have an episcopal bishop [and many others] who actually deny the virgin birth … Bishop Spong has postulated that Jesus’ conception was the result of Mary’s rape by a roman soldier … that the message of Jesus about the poor and down trodden is a consequence of Jesus’ birth and the oppression of roman rule … it is hard to seperate this belief from the change in Christian thought about Mary … sorry, they go hand in hand … and it is a change …

Does it matter if Mary did not remain a virgin?

Yes, see comments above … The concept of siblings calls to mind all of the scripture passages where brother was pitted against brother beginnig with Cain and Abel … for the love f God and power, authority etc…

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant … pure and untouched, the vessel that carred the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven, the High Priest - Jesus, the God/Man … Mary whose entire focus was “magifying the Lord”

As St. Paul said, the message cannot just sound reasonable …all that is said of Jesus must be true or our faith is in vain …

 

[Jimmy_B]

It can clearly be showned that the person most Identified as the “brother of Jesus”, James, is not the brother of Jesus, so the arguement should and here; why doesnt it?

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

 

[Elric]

It might not change his message but it could cast a shadow over who Jesus is [or was] and the veracity of Jesus as the Man/God

It might not change his message?

You are joking right?

If JEsus has siblings what would make Him unigue … how would one consider the whole idea of the virgin birth … we already have an episcopal bishop [and many others] who actually deny the virgin birth

Lets be clear, we are not in any way questioning the virgin birth. I dont know why you keep bringing that up because its not relevent.

… Bishop Spong has postulated that Jesus’ conception was the result of Mary’s rape by a roman soldier … that the message of Jesus about the poor and down trodden is a consequence of Jesus’ birth and the oppression of roman rule … it is hard to seperate this belief from the change in Christian thought about Mary … sorry, they go hand in hand … and it is a change …

Not only did that not answer the question (which is pretty specific), but that has nothing to do with the sibling argument.

You are arguing something else entirely and that leads me to think that if such a discovery was made (Jesus having siblings), it would make you question your faith.

Yes, see comments above … The concept of siblings calls to mind all of the scripture passages where brother was pitted against brother beginnig with Cain and Abel … for the love f God and power, authority etc…

Sorry but you above comment isnt relevent and is arguing something else entirely.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant … pure and untouched, the vessel that carred the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven, the High Priest - Jesus, the God/Man … Mary whose entire focus was “magifying the Lord”

As St. Paul said, the message cannot just sound reasonable …all that is said of Jesus must be true or our faith is in vain …

So what would change about Jesus?

He would still be the son of God, he would still have the same message, he would still die for all of us. The truth is that nothing would change about Jesus.

If they found proof of siblings (and I mean IF), the only difference would be the teaching of Mary remaining a virgin. That isnt a problem.

 

[YADA]

So what would change about Jesus?

He would still be the son of God, he would still have the same message, he would still die for all of us. The truth is that nothing would change about Jesus.

If they found proof of siblings (and I mean IF), the only difference would be the teaching of Mary remaining a virgin. That isnt a problem.

Elric,

First and foremost Jesus had no siblings and they will never find proof that he did.

You miss my point, so let me attempt to be more clear…

Christianity for centuries believed that Mary was ever virgin … then there were some who began to question that tenet of the faith … this is a late development that arises during the “Enlightenment period” … 1800’s +/- … then comes the period of the “sexual revolution” so now people not only question Mary’s perpetual virginity but they question the virgin birth as well … and this from within Christianity … we have an Episcopal Bishop who does not believe in the virgin birth but that Mary was raped by a Roman Soldier … the message of Jesus is not about everlasting life [salvation nd ressurection] but that his a message about the oppression of the poor … a political message meant to affect change in the way government treats citizens … nowyou may still belive in the virgin birth but much of mainline christianity does not and that comes from the disbeleif in other tenets of the faith and one very prominant one was the perpetual viginity of Mary … this happens in increments not all at once … chip away here, chip away there …

Check out the Jesus Seminar, these christians do not believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection or that Jesus said much of what is recorded in history … the resurrection was [one of the JEsus seminar ideas] an event of mass hysteria brought on by their inbility to deal with his brutal crucifixtion …

As for the siblings … in a faith community that reveres the very bones of saints, even to the point of stealing the neighboring towns saint’'s relics … where are the relics of the siblings … surely they would be held in very high esteem [after all you claim one as the bishop of Jerusalem - surely he would be highly prized?]

In all of the early chruch writings, where are the writings one of these ‘siblings’ about the life of Jesus … what it was like growing up with the God/Man? The reminences of family and all?

In the arguements of whether Jesus was just and only a human man [not God] or that Jesus was purely God and not man where is the testimony of these siblings? Surely they would have had valuable insights to share with the early christians [or church leadership - especially as you claim one as a bishop] s they wrestled with this question. Surely they would have wrestled with this question themselves.

In fact they would have had to wrestle with what it meant for them to be ‘related’ to the God man? … And yet there are no writings, no clear testimony by any such sibling nor any writings clearly about any sibling … there is no tomb, no church claiming relics … Nada, Zip …

Not a single church claims to have the bones of the Blessed Mother … now that would be a relic of the highest order! …

Even the Emporor Constintine never claimed any such relic …

You have very vague references to the Brethren of the Lord or the Lord’s brother … and one of those references is "is this not the capenter’s son … " which clearly iis in opposition to a virgin birth … you say you believe but others say if he had brothers and was the son of a carpenter … then the rest [virgin birth after all Isaiah merely says ‘young girl’ not virgin] is just myth …