Jesus had siblings?

[nevadagardener]

Not to take the reason for the post out of context …

But in all organizations we abhor the abuse issue, and you cannot name one organization that hasn’t had “one bad apple spoil the whole barrel”. That whole thought probably belongs on another thread, if you want to take it there …

For my part, I’d like more info on some of the ideas that have been brought directly related to this topic.

More info on Ann Rice’s novel about Christ …

Regarding books about the life of Mary, she was supposedly dictating the history of her life to one of the seers at Medjugorie, then Yugoslavia, which visions started in the 80’s and to my knowledge, continue to this day, to a group of Catholic teenagers then, who are now all grown, of course. Was it ever completed? If so, this would be the modern-day definitive answer to these questions. Anyone?

Does anyone know if this history or information is being discussed by the lay-apostle Anne in Ireland, in her inner locution dialogues with Heaven in the present time? Both of these ministries (Anne’s is “The Return of the King”, at www.directionforourtimes.com.) This same group followed the events in Medjugorie.

Regarding Jewish customs and traditions, Jesus and the apostles were highly critical of those He called “hypocrites”, because He felt they were spending too much time following “the rules” of being a good Jew versus what He wanted us to understand, i.e. how to live our lives, hence His teachings in so many parables, and His many direct pleadings, “Do you love me? Then feed my sheep!” The Catholic Church which He started, and as it came to be known, is all about loving one another, and many of the Jewish traditions were simply not followed any longer, abandoned, the first Christians choosing to worship and practice the way Jesus taught them.

Understanding Jewish customs and laws gives us the understanding of what happened, as it relates to events in the Bible, and alot of why Jesus was eventually murdered. He spoke against the Jewish hypocrites, He was considered a rebel rouser, and they wanted to get rid of Him. This eventual end was necessary for the sacrifice of the Lamb, and not too many Catholics honestly believe it for anything other than what it was … the fulfillment of the atonement of our sins. Jesus knew it would happen, just that way. Catholics don’t place alot of merit on Jewish customs or traditions now, so it is not important for us to get into those details, other than to really try to understand the history or the background in the Bible text, so we can understand the teaching or the event that happened because of it. In other words, we try not to get hung up on the details of the Jewish customs or laws, unless it is relative in some way.

Hope that helps, and if anyone can provide answers relative to this thread, I’d love it!

 

[diggerdomer]

Just one more thought, to further illustrate the point:

It was Joseph who “put Mary away”, until her time had passed. Earlier I explained that Mary could have been stoned, if he had not done so. This was because Mary and Joseph were already engaged when their roles to become the Holy Family were revealed to them. They were not yet married, nor were they living together. In fact, Mary was living at the temple from the time she was 3 years old, for 11 years, until their marriage. During that brief stint, she lived with Elizabeth, for her protection. The Jewish law held that Mary, engaged as she was to Joseph, by the revelation of the pregnancy, had committed adultery against him, and the punishment was death. Only Joseph could stop that from happening, by stepping up and taking her as his wife. Joseph questioned it, as stated earlier, distraught that Mary would have broken her vows, not only to him, but to God.

A very beautiful, true story, a most holy and moral man, the epitome of a loving man, a just man, Saint Joseph. The original Foster Father. A Most Perfect Example of men stepping up, not allowing anything horrific to happen to the women in their lives, and the unborn, regardless of whom the father might be. Does this resonate in our times? Wish it would. Was it MEANT to resonate for All Time? Probably.

Things to think about.

Whether or not this story is beautiful is a matter of personal opinion. Whether it’s true is more important. The Church does not teach the story you relate. It’s fine for your personal understanding but not something that is essential to the Catholic faith.

Cheers

 

[SHW]

Where does this first reference come from? It’s not Church teaching is it?

Also, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Or are you referring to the Old Testament?

Cheers

Hi,

The first is a Scripture Study that I wrote using Catholic sources for the interpretation of Scriptures. If you find errors in it that contradict Church teaching, please let me know.

The second one: The OT was originally written in Hebrew but translated into Greek. “When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture.” From envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Check out catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea1.asp for an interesting read about the original NT Scripture languages:

Here is an excerpt: “Carmignac also concluded that the synoptics were written first in Hebrew and only later were translated into Greek. Among his arguments was this startling one concerning the Benedictus, which appears in Luke 1:68-79. In the first line of the second strophe is the verb hânan, which is the root of the name John. In the second line is the verb zâkar, which is the root of the name Zachary. In the third line is the verb shâba, which is the root of the name Elizabeth. This triple allusion to the three protagonists appears only if our Greek text is “translated backward” into Hebrew; it does not appear in Greek or in English.”

Hope this piques your interest.

Pax,
SHW

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi,

The first is a Scripture Study that I wrote using Catholic sources for the interpretation of Scriptures. If you find errors in it that contradict Church teaching, please let me know.

The second one: The OT was originally written in Hebrew but translated into Greek.

Thanks for responding.

I don’t have time to go through and check for errors, I’m sure it’s not necessary, I just wanted to clarify whether what you were presenting was authentic Church teaching.

Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but parts were originally in Aramaic and Greek.

Cheers

 

[nevadagardener]

… is the revelation of the God made Man, and the parts Mary and Joseph played in it, to bring God’s Salvation to fruition, every part of it. Every part of what I have said is already written in the Scriptures, or the Gospels, the retelling of their story. The parts that were not recorded in the Bible (because many stories, according to the Aspostles, simply were not recorded, there were just too many), were passed on as Tradition or can be verified through various Catholic sources, starting with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You should spend some time visiting that site, or follow up on the many sites I have already named. There you will find the apologetics you need. These many sources will give you the specific references and page numbers.

Catholics are not fundamentalists. We follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they are not all included only in the Bible. You must also remember that many traditionally Catholic views, such as the term “Purgatory”, are not specifically named in the Bible, but are Catholic teaching, and have been revealed by Heaven through the ages through the various prophets and saints, even to this day. The events of the children in Fatima, Bernadette in Lourdes, all of the visionaries and mystics and the religious orders they started, the conversion of entire peoples (think Our Lady of Guadalupe) in Mexico, are all actual events that occured, though not in the Bible. The events occuring in modern times, such as Medjugorie and the mission the lay-apostle Anne is overseeing worldwide, are all happening in the now. That is because the Catholic Church is a Living Church. Jesus told us, “Remember, I will be with you always, even unto the end of time.” Nor would the gates of Hell prevail against His Church. Heaven is actively working within each of us to ensure the End of Time happens exactly the way they have planned it.

It is the very definition of faith, and hope.

I am a cradle Catholic, but not content to ever stop learning about all of these things. Indeed, if you haven’t heard of it yet, visit the website www.directionforourtimes.com, get the book “Climbing the Mountain”, Anne’s first book dictated by Jesus, relive her visits to Heaven, (taken there by Jesus in August of 2005 over the course of about a month), all of which is approved by Rome, and the Volumes He, Mary, and various of the saints have put together on various topics. It will open your eyes.

 

[nevadagardener]

is a main issue in this thread, by which we are able to show that because of that, it is not possible for Jesus to have siblings. I referenced my sources, and if it is important to you to do so, certainly track them all back and verify them yourself.

Further, be sure to go back to the sites that posters have given, as they specifically cover that issue as well as others being debated. Especially visit these sites independently, because some of the posters are starting to cite references from these sites now, which the forum rules discourage us from doing, rather encouraging us to visit the sites. I am speaking specifically of the seven books of the Catholic Bible that Jesus and the Aspostles quoted from, but all are very good postings. Enjoy!

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s definitely important to check sources. Unfortunately, many of the sources you’ve cited in this thread are not authentic Church teaching. They may be useful, or informative, or true…but they are not essential to the Catholic faith.

Cheers

 

[jean8]

is a main issue in this thread, by which we are able to show that because of that, it is not possible for Jesus to have siblings. I referenced my sources, and if it is important to you to do so, certainly track them all back and verify them yourself.

Further, be sure to go back to the sites that posters have given, as they specifically cover that issue as well as others being debated. Especially visit these sites independently, because some of the posters are starting to cite references from these sites now, which the forum rules discourage us from doing, rather encouraging us to visit the sites. I am speaking specifically of the seven books of the Catholic Bible that Jesus and the Aspostles quoted from, but all are very good postings. Enjoy!

nevada,
Did Jesus have siblings? This question certainly has been debated over and over again…
My former pastor believed Jesus did not have siblings. You will notice I’m a Lutheran.
I myself tend to believe this too. However, the Bible does say in several scriptures that Jesus did indeed have siblings. I now look at this question this way, Does it really matter? We will all know someday. I know this can’t be a salvation issue, if it was , I’d still be fretting about it. (Mt.13:53-58)
I think I’ll just wait and see, when I see my Savior face to face.

God bless,
jean

 

[Leopard]

…However, the Bible does say in several scriptures that Jesus did indeed have siblings…

The Bible does not say anywhere that Jesus had siblings.

The Bible does refer to certain persons as brothers or sisters of Jesus.

This is not the same thing. It has already been demonstrated that the terms brother and sister were used to denote relationships other than siblings.

 

[diggerdomer]

Not exactly. It’s been demonstrated that ONE explanation is that other relations are referred to. But it has not been demonstrated that’s the ONLY (and only true) explanation.

 

[jean8]

The Bible does not say anywhere that Jesus had siblings.

The Bible does refer to certain persons as brothers or sisters of Jesus.

This is not the same thing. It has already been demonstrated that the terms brother and sister were used to denote relationships other than siblings.

Leopold,
I respect what you believe. I also have read the Bible. I hope you have also.
This question is answered for us in more than one passage.
Do you have a Study Bible and a Commentary?

God bless your search,
jaen

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

It’s hard to believe that even Catholics can not see, which extraordinary experiences Mary relived as we are told in Luke 1,24-54, and that therefore Holy Mary of course couldn’t even think of having other children.
Adding all other experiences – remember the 12year old Jesus teaching the wise etc. and Millions od other happenings about Jesus.

The question about brothers of Jesus, is clear highest blasphemy anyway. How could anybody think, that Mrs. Brown of next door, would be bodily related to God?! (for she is descendant of other Children of Holy Mary) :-(((

How could anybody get the idea, that Holy Mary after the experiment she had - giving birth to God, even think of other - normal human Children.

The everlasting virginity of the holiest of all Holies – Holy Mary – is not only teaching of the Church, is also written into the heart of everyone who really lives his faith as Christian.

Isn’t it clear, that Gods plan for Holy Mary was a very different one than Gods plans for all other women?!
**

 

[twb1621]

It must be pointed out that regardless of Christian “denomination” the splits from Luther on, occurred 1500 years past the establishment of the Church Jesus founded. That any Christian faith would denounce the Apostles or the Fathers of the Church or the teachings and writings of them from the time of the formation of the Christian Faith is non-sensical if one is to claim being Christian.

In response to the question of Jesus being the only biological son of Mary,

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing *Protoevangelium of James] *is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
Continued at catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
Read the “The Protoevangelium of James”

 

[Bastoune]

Two good reads:

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

Brothers Opisso’s article mentions how those who received the Word of God remained celebate (even in marriage – like Moses). How much more the woman whose womb bore the Word of God Incarnate?

When dealing with Protestants, it is best to IGNORE the Protoevangelium of James totally because it is NOT inspired Scripture. Rely instead on good, solid exegesis of the Sacred Scriptures, OT and NT, to show the evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity – as well as how it is understood in light of Jewish tradition.

 

[MarieCB]

…as well as how it is understood in light of Jewish tradition.

And yet Jewish tradition does NOT support the idea of any healthy person taking a vow of lifetime celibacy.

Perhaps that’s my confusion. They were devout, Law-abiding Jews, and yet people seem to think they would act like 15th century Christians.

 

[twb1621]

Two good reads:

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

Brothers Opisso’s article mentions how those who received the Word of God remained celebate (even in marriage – like Moses). How much more the woman whose womb bore the Word of God Incarnate?

When dealing with Protestants, it is best to IGNORE the Protoevangelium of James totally because it is NOT inspired Scripture. Rely instead on good, solid exegesis of the Sacred Scriptures, OT and NT, to show the evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity – as well as how it is understood in light of Jewish tradition.

I thank you for your suggestion and understand completely. However, I also like to make the point that aside form the fact Protestants base their faith on only a Part of the teachings given us by Christ, it would also be a benefit to them and certainly our obligation to some degree to make it clear they not only miss and miss-understand a great deal due to the censorship of the very books the apostles and Jesus referred to, they also have lost a great deal in the teachings of the Church fathers. Somewhere along the line those who really look into their protestant belief find many questions that do not get answered without the remainder of the Christian teachings Jesus gave us and made available through His Church. To make the point that the references I offered are valid and cannot be credibly refuted regardless of whether some chooses to believe or not. After all, the founders of the protestant faiths were mere men with their own opinions who decided to gather people who would believe as they did. This is repetitious to this day occurring over and over again throughout the Christian faiths. As these facts are not refutable and support the Faith the Bible has generated from, I will at times as necessary present them and it is the non-Catholic who must make the choice. After that, it is between them and our Lord.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Cant help thinking about, not the hundreds, the thousands of priest who as you say we should not reject, that are abusing our children, abusing women on the quiet, in the case of my parish priest at my first holy communion, running off with the housekeeper. As a catholic, whenever this subject would rear its ugly head, i would prepare myself for my non catholic friends who would have a field day. I looked on them with disdain, explaining that would it be the case that the whole british army was rotten to the core, and should be disbanded because of a well publicised child abuser arrested at the army barracks. But now that its abundantly clear that only the minority of priests have a real calling, are we just to pretend that all is well.

Yikes, whose agenda are you promoting here?

 

[diggerdomer]

When dealing with Protestants, it is best to IGNORE the Protoevangelium of James totally because it is NOT inspired Scripture. Rely instead on good, solid exegesis of the Sacred Scriptures, OT and NT, to show the evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity – as well as how it is understood in light of Jewish tradition.

I wouldn’t say ignore the Protevangelium of James, but I also wouldn’t say you can read it at the same level as Scripture (not to mention history).

I don’t at all see how restricting ourselves to Scripture would help. No one would reasonably arrive at a conclusion of Mary’s perpetual virginity if they went only by Scripture (and I’ve never come across anything in Scripture to suggest perpetual virginity was a Jewish custom either). Yes, there are passages in Scripture that we use to support the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but this is done simply to show the teaching is not in conflict with Scripture; not that it is derived from Scripture.

Cheers

 

[Bastoune]

And yet Jewish tradition does NOT support the idea of any healthy person taking a vow of lifetime celibacy.

Perhaps that’s my confusion. They were devout, Law-abiding Jews, and yet people seem to think they would act like 15th century Christians.

Wrong. Not only is Jewish tradition not opposed to it, but when receiving the word of God, such as the case of Moses and his wife, they remained celibate for life.

Mary was consecrated as spouse to the Holy Spirit and that is one reason Joseph was afraid to marry her.

 

[diggerdomer]

Wrong. Not only is Jewish tradition not opposed to it, but when receiving the word of God, such as the case of Moses and his wife, they remained celibate for life.

Mary was consecrated as spouse to the Holy Spirit and that is one reason Joseph was afraid to marry her.

Celibate means unmarried, so how could a married couple remain celibate for life?

Regardless, whatever may be true for Moses and his wife can hardly be considered normative for Jews 1000+ years later. Also, Moses was an exceptional person (not your average Hebrew) so that doesn’t make sense to simply equate his life and experience with the “common” Hebrew or Jew of his (or any) time. So that line of reasoning just doesn’t hold.

It’s ok to think of Mary as consecrated spouse to the Holy Spirit (though I think that could end up being a problem if the metaphor was carried too far), and it’s ok to suppose Joseph was afraid to marry her, but none of that is in Scripture.

Cheers