Jesus had siblings?

[nevadagardener]

People always assume it is only of Joseph, per Luke. But it is also a direct blood reference to Mary’s house, as she is also a descendant.

One of you guys included this fact in one of your posts, I think a link, but there are so many of them now, I forget which one. Anyone? If you don’t know readily, I’ll dig back through them and find it, but … you get my point.

And 1000 years between King David and Jesus is 40 generations of 25 years each, so that comes pretty close there … but does anyone have the Scriptural quote that makes my case?

For those of you who have forgotten about what this thread was originally about, it is whether Jesus had siblings. In order to answer the question, we have to provide no children, blood or step, of either Mary or Joseph. Or provide conclusive proof OF them. (It is a little harder to prove that a person who never existed, never existed. If it is a little tiring for some of you, the details of it, well, that is what happens in debate. And this is a forum.)

That Catholic and Protestant sources confer in the above posts that the cousins conclusion is the correct one, and that we went to pains to demonstrate the parents of each of the so-called “brethren” in the scriptural quotes you found, would make them in fact Jesus’s cousins (and a couple of other apostles not related to him, hence his “brothers” aka “followers/believers”), there is little room for doubt. (But we all have the gift of Free Will that we will have to answer for, someday.) Even going to bat for clarifying all the Marys and Jameses, and aliases of Joseph/Joses/Jose, as well as of Cleophas, Clopas, and Alphaeus. And all the references for the perpetual virginity of both Mary and Joseph (albeit not as many for Joseph, although it is abundantly clear in just the one, if you followed back the link for Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, that Joseph very clearly understood his role and would never dare trespass it).

Not to mention the customs of the times from Saint Paul and Jesus himself in the posts, how it was common to rise above one’s personal desires and remain chaste in a marriage for the greater good. It IS very possible to love someone profoundly, deeply, spiritually, and still chastely. (Keeping in mind the goal of the marriage, in each case. Lovemaking in a marriage is a gift of God to the partners in the marriage, and is originally intended for procreation in ordinary marriages. If the couple comes together, with no intention for that goal, what business is it of ours to pass judgment on them, or to be without understanding of the importance the marital act has for them versus us in the now?)

People in our modern times place too much emphasis on the more animal nature of the human, and that is just too bad. Perhaps it is a statement of our times, showing that people now just can’t get to the spiritual, without the physical. Especially that they are incapable of separating it out, when it comes to an understanding that elements of The Holy Family included the Divine (one of three being Half Man, Half God, and Mary’s womb consecrated to the Holy Spirit, and how any other man would not even think of trespassing that, in the most highest regard to the Divine).

I am no theologian, just devoted to The Holy Family. Their creation was no accident, no game of chance, but predestined for all time, foretold by the prophets. To suppose they were anything less (or more, as some would allege), is lacking understanding of their Roles for All Time. There is such a thing as The Greater Good. Perhaps trying to understand, outside ourselves and our own human needs, is what is required to get there.

Thanks for trying to understand,

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Jesus was and is FULLY Man and FULLY God.
Actually this is very easy to understand. I won’t repeat post #202 and others in this thread, for this thread is walking in circles.

As to other siblings, a dear friend of mine just wrote to me:

Who on earth would think that Joseph would violate the womb of the Holy Spirit? This is insane thinking.<

I add once more:
Mary couldn’t ever think of other Children after all that had been (Luke 1,26 to 46)
One shouldn’t insist on silly statements. Lack of understanding ought to be recognized as such. Prayers bring more understanding that human explanations. Condition is the honest wish to understand. Luke 11,10
**

 

[nevadagardener]

I stand corrected, dear Bruno. What you said. Thanks for fixing my misstatement.

 

[po18guy]

Saint Joseph was a “righteous man” in God’s eyes (Matthew 1:19). So, being a righteous, God-fearing man, why on earth would he then violate the womb of the Holy Spirit?

 

[nevadagardener]

and the next statement he made in that passage was that he meant to go out and bring them into His Fold. Jesus makes it clear that in Heaven there are people of all Faiths. And that once we are there, we will spend the rest of Eternity coming to an understanding of what it is They want us to know. (Probably, given the percentage of our brains that we are currently known to be using, it’ll take that long, just as an aside. A little levity here.) Some get a little stop in Purgatory (more than likely, “Most” – that whole “eye of the needle” thing), it’s just going to take them longer due to willful disbelief, but since they didn’t outright defy Jesus and God, at least they are not cast to Hell (willful disobedience of the worst kinds).

The trick is to learn as much as we can while we are here, and “feed His sheep” along the way (which we do because we love Him), so that we can at least gain entrance. And, according to Jesus, follow the First Commandment, and “to love each other as we love ourselves”, the shortened version Jesus Himself gave us of the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God. (Because if we “love each other as much as we love ourselves”, then we’ll find it impossible to break the 10.) Them’s the Rules. Ready, Go!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

THE PROBLEM IS AUTHORITY VS. INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE

The real issue for many of us, whether dealing with the perpetual virginity of Mary or some other difficult doctrine, is whether we accept such dogmas because the Church teaches them or we go along with what our consciences tell us.

 The Church says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That may be true, of course, but:

(1) I don’t find it important as there is nothing wrong with sexual relations in marriage - actually a great gift as it can be a beautiful expression of love; and (2) if Mary had additional children, wonderful! She certainly would have been a superb mother. Though, as you may recall, I mentioned earlier that it troubled me even as a child Mary and Joseph apparently went a considerable distance from Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 before they noticed that he was missing! Other younger children might help explain that.

  Frankly, I think that God gave us a brain to use and I can't imagine him punishing us because honest contemplation and intense study leads us to disagree with some of the teachings of the Church. And that is where I am. I understand that many people want an absolute authority, that many think that those of us who think independently are somehow arrogant or disobedient, that we should simply believe this or that because the Church says to. Most Catholics I know well don't accept everything the church teaches, such as transubstantiation. I respect the Church's position but I also respect those who can't accept some doctrines even if they want to. How could a God of love and mercy condemn them to eternal punishment for their honesty?

Again, if you want to be a Protestant, that’s fine.

 

[FCEGM]

Wow. Yea. That convinced me.

Such a flip and dismissive attitude never allows one to come to deep faith since it stays on the surface of things (and even there not seeing very clearly). Spiritual maturity seeks understanding with a listening heart; immaturity seeks to preserve itself from a deeper commitment to Christ and His Church which is inseparable from Him.

I’m more inclined toward Pope John XXII’s view of papal infallibility. He thought that it was a heresy sent from the Father of Lies, and I can completely understand his line of thought in that. (His writing is convoluted and hard to follow, but hey, I edit ESL papers all day so that’s nothing new for me)

No, you obviously do not completely understand his thought. You are being anachronistic and unreasonable. Pope John XXII is not speaking about Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I. He is talking about imposed limits on Papal authority. What you are trying to do here is retro-fit a medieval conflict between Pope John and the Franciscans into the much later debate on the nature of Papal Infallibility. That is a silly and anachronistic approach. The dogma of Papal Infallibility (including its specific limits) was debated and defined for centuries both before and after this event. Some Popes (like Gregory VII) even assumed that it extended to temporal affairs; others thought differently.

So you obviously don’t know history very well, nor do you understand what Papal infalliblity actually is and how it was appreciated since earliest times. The development of the dogma was a matter of refining the application of Papal Infallibility from the organic sense of Roman infallibility (appreciated by the Church since earliest times) into a more specific and legal sense, which is what Vatican I eventually clarified.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but if you’re coming from an initial premise that sex is bad, then, as many here have stated, you certainly can’t entertain the thought that Jesus - although fully man - could possibly have been defiled by something as base and disgusting (and human!) as sex. Or, apparently, his mother or his father. Read through the thread - that’s been stated repeatedly.

For what it’s worth, though, I agree with you completely.

But, hey, it’s church dogma, so it’s True.

The Catholic Church does not teach that sex is bad, and that is not the basis for the Church’s teaching on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

It is Church dogma, so we can trust that it is true, but you are not yet convinced of the infallibility of the Church. Thus, to discuss Marian dogmas without first understanding and believing that the Church is protected from teaching error is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[diggerdomer]

Then you are a heretic. Just please be clear about it.

That is not true. At least, from a Catholic point of view it’s not.

From the Catholic understanding, only a Catholic who rejects an essential doctrine/dogma of the faith can be a heretic. Unless I’m really mistaken, the person you responded to indicates from the profile info that he or she is from a Protestant background, so it’s completely wrong from a Catholic perspective to call such a person a heretic (though if you’re still living according to the previous 1917 Code of Canon Law you may be correct).

Not to mention it strikes me, personally, as uncharitable. I’m not sure how labels like this advance our shared growth in faith.

 

[jean8]

The Gospel of James? Well, I guess that explains some things.

Hello marie,
Yes, I was just looking at the gospel of James.
The footnotes read, James was the brother of Jesus.
So now we can all mull over interpretatation, and which Bible we are using… I have about six or seven Bibles, including The New American Bible, with study notes. I also use a Concordance and more than two or three Bible Commentaries.
I do not judge others and what the Lord has shown them thus far in their walk with the Lord. I love all christians and even those who have not yet found their way.

God bless,
jean.

PS. I thought I should check The New American Bible and see what it says about James
this is part of the reading. "The designation probably refers to a new Testament relative
of Jesus who is usually called “the brother of the Lord.”.
We seem to have many subjective views of questions we seek answers for. At times these problem questions are left out of the Commenataries completely. And other sources as well. We can only pray.
God Bless.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Those here, who insist Jesus had siblings, refuse to learn, whatever Christians lovingly told them. So I won’t waist my time any longer. One day they will see how strongly they insulted God, the Holy Family and Gods incredible feat of salvation.

Many couldn’t even think of what these fighters for siblings of Jesus indicate to the joy of hell: Such as Mary had sex with Joseph and several children; henceforth many are blood-related to the Holy Family (so, why not Mrs. Brown next door).
Direct contact to heaven of the Holy Family as known of the Luke-Gospel; the fact that Mary gave birth to God who had lived long before Abraham, didn’t make Holy Mary any different from any woman… and much more of this sickening, really to be called hellish thoughts.

Might they keep their own interpretation of Jesus and His mother. I feel sorry for them, but I refuse to give any further answer on such dumb interpretations of the Holiest Queen of Heaven. Final and disgusted Good Bye to this hellish thread, for it makes me and many who live their faith in God, severely ill.
**

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Heretical thinking is possible for anyone. And there’s a lot of anti-Church feelings even among Catholics.

In my experience, those who boast of such attitudes aren’t looking to be convinced that the Church is right, but only to gather more fodder for their anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[paul_c]

Heretical thinking is possible for anyone. And there’s a lot of anti-Church feelings even among Catholics.

In my experience, those who boast of such attitudes aren’t looking to be convinced that the Church is right, but only to gather more fodder for their anti-Catholic bigotry.

Catholics should condemn heritical ideas but it should not be personal. That is not an act of charity and only acts of charity are sanctifying. The best way to educate is through facts, not name calling.

 

[twb1621]

I don’t continue to argue with people who sincerely believe that all physics is caused by tiny gnomes, or people who sincerely believe in government conspiracies, or people who sincerely believe that Da Vinci Code is the most amazing book ever written. However, that doesn’t mean that I’ve come to agree with them. By the same token, there’s only so much anyone can argue when your final argument comes down to “The church says so.”

I actually came to this forum because my sweetie grew up Roman Catholic, and I thought that it would be good for me to learn about the church and to consider becoming part of it. We were talking about going to mass together, and we spoke to the priest about baptizing our son.

Since being part of this forum and beginning to learn the facts about the RCC, I can tell you that two things have happened. First, I’ve realized that I could never be Roman Catholic. Second, my partner has decided that he made the right decision when he was a teenager and left the church. I’m still here because I keep hoping that I’m misunderstanding something, or that I’m missing something, but I’m becoming to doubt that.

I didn’t write this post directed to you but after reading your statement here, I am sincerely interested in what conclusions you have come to that are adverse to the CC. We all can learn here and if something has been presented incorrectly or inappropriately, that can and should be brought to light and discussed further. The fact that you are Christian attests to the fact that you believe in at least some of the teachings of the CC. If you are truly interested in finding out the truth, the discussion should not end at this point. I know there are many in this forum who would agree. If you are willing to listen with an open ear, there are those of us willing to give the time.

 

[passioncrosslov]

Since the quoted passage below did not state clearly that James was the blood child of Joseph, there is a possibility that James was adopted??? In addition, “before they came together” Mary (the Virgin) “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit”, analytically, seems to mean that her pregnancy was brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit and could not be caused by Joseph himself, since we can assume that Mary and Joseph are righteous and holy persons and could not have committed “adulterous” act that would result in a pregnancy before they officially came together (marriage), otherwise they would not be fit to be chosen to take such an essential part of God’s redemptive mission to be the instrument for the the Eternal Word to incarnate, the Savior of the world: ***With God, all things are possible.

---

“Brother” could be applied culturally in Jewish culture as a cousin or a respected older/younger man. For instance, in my culture, we use “anh” (“big brother”) for older brother, higher rank male cousin, or an older man (friend/stranger alike) - out of respect; and we use “em” (“younger brother”) for the younger ones.

Then again, I have not read every posts and someone could have said it already…

I was talking with a foirmer Catholic seminarian - he attended an orthodox seminary a few years back - before converting to pentacostalism. He told me that at the very least Jesus had half-brothers. He said Mary may not have been perpetually a virgin.

He referred me to Eusebius’s The History of The Church.

In Book 2 of the Penguin copy of Eusebius says - he pointed me here:

**“The there was James who was known as the Brother of the Lord; for he too, was called Joseph’s son, and Joseph Christ’s father, though in fact the Virgin was his betrothed and before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Ghost”.
**
At the very least this sure sounds like James was a half-brother to Jesus through Joseph. The sentence leaves open the possiblity that James was conceived after Jesus which would contradict the perpetual virginity dogma. No where in Eusebius is there a hint of this dogma.

It seems at the very least Jesus had half siblings through a previous to Mary marriage of Joseph.

Is it de-fide that Jesus had no siblings, or has the church not formally stated this?

 

[jean8]

Such a flip and dismissive attitude never allows one to come to deep faith since it stays on the surface of things (and even there not seeing very clearly). Spiritual maturity seeks understanding with a listening heart; immaturity seeks to preserve itself from a deeper commitment to Christ and His Church which is inseparable from Him.

No, you obviously do not completely understand his thought. You are being anachronistic and unreasonable. Pope John XXII is not speaking about Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I. He is talking about imposed limits on Papal authority. What you are trying to do here is retro-fit a medieval conflict between Pope John and the Franciscans into the much later debate on the nature of Papal Infallibility. That is a silly and anachronistic approach. The dogma of Papal Infallibility (including its specific limits) was debated and defined for centuries both before and after this event. Some Popes (like Gregory VII) even assumed that it extended to temporal affairs; others thought differently.

So you obviously don’t know history very well, nor do you understand what Papal infalliblity actually is and how it was appreciated since earliest times. The development of the dogma was a matter of refining the application of Papal Infallibility from the organic sense of Roman infallibility (appreciated by the Church since earliest times) into a more specific and legal sense, which is what Vatican I eventually clarified.

FCEGM,
I tend not to believe Jesus had siblings. I also do not think this is required to be saved.
However, the Bible does say, "Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?"Mk.6:3
also see, Mt.13:53-58
Infallibility? God is infallilble, not man. Man is born in sin, and that is just the beginning of his life.
btw, I won’t get angry if you have a different view from mine. We both have Jesus Christ. He tells us to love one another.

God bless,
jean

 

[jean8]

**Those here, who insist Jesus had siblings, refuse to learn, whatever Christians lovingly told them. So I won’t waist my time any longer. One day they will see how strongly they insulted God, the Holy Family and Gods incredible feat of salvation.

Many couldn’t even think of what these fighters for siblings of Jesus indicate to the joy of hell: Such as Mary had sex with Joseph and several children; henceforth many are blood-related to the Holy Family (so, why not Mrs. Brown next door).
Direct contact to heaven of the Holy Family as known of the Luke-Gospel; the fact that Mary gave birth to God who had lived long before Abraham, didn’t make Holy Mary any different from any woman… and much more of this sickening, really to be called hellish thoughts.

Might they keep their own interpretation of Jesus and His mother. I feel sorry for them, but I refuse to give any further answer on such dumb interpretations of the Holiest Queen of Heaven. Final and disgusted Good Bye to this hellish thread, for it makes me and many who live their faith in God, severely ill.
**

bruno,
You can exhale now.
No one is here to insult God.
“God has limited our intelligence, but not our stupidty.”
I hope it will make you feel better to know, I tend to believe Mary did not have other children. I’m a Lutheran. We love and honor Mary too. We even have a Lutheran Rosary.

God bless,
jean

I hope you feel better now.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Infallibility? God is infallilble, not man. Man is born in sin, and that is just the beginning of his life.

It certainly is amazing how often non-catholics throw in digs against infallibility and then profoundly claim their faith in Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity. The same Trinity whose Third Person, the Holy Spirit is the one who leads the Curch in Her infallibility.

Keep pushing your tray down the cafeteria line as you pick and choose which of God’s truths you want to believe or not, Catholic or not. Truth is truth no matter what denomination you hail allegiance to.

Eddie Mac

 

[nevadagardener]

Imagine, just for a second, that you had been told by the Angel Gabriel of God, that the woman whom you had waited most of her life to marry, and all of yours, and to whom you were engaged, whom you knew was chaste (because you literally had watched her grow up), was going to deliver a Child, conceived of the Holy Spirit, and you were to name Him Immanuel “God is With Us”.

First, the relief you would have, knowing your beloved was true to her word. After all, she told you the story. You were mad. You couldn’t believe her, but you wanted to believe her, because that explained everything. After all, every Jewish family knew the prophecy: that of a virgin the Savior would be born; those families descended of the House of David eagerly anticipated that THEY could be the family. In fact, Jewish families today STILL BELIEVE that they could be the one, since they rejected Jesus Christ as the Savior. And then, you were visited by the Angel Gabriel, and told that YOU were to be The Holy Family.

Second, your realization of your new role as foster father, protector, provider, teacher, and role model for the Son of God. You are incredulous that it is happening to you.

Would you ever sleep at night, wondering if you were up to the task? Every time you were approached by the next prophet, revealing they knew the Savior had arrived and was in your charge, or promising your certain heartbreak, or visited again by the Angel Gabriel, and told to flee, "the Child and His mother are in danger … don’t come back until it is safe … we’ll let you know … "

You would never sleep at night again. You would humbly submit (as they did) to Heaven’s Plan, but the doubts you would have, “Are we doing as God would have us do? The Right Thing?”

There is no greater task than being asked to shape the Son of God into an Admirable Man, and to help Him fulfill His Prophecy. And as Mary and Joseph began to understand that this Beautiful Creature, Whom they had the privilege of shaping, would become the Sacrificial Lamb for the Atonement of our sins … can you imagine their impending grief? Aside from every other angle we have discussed, itsn’t it obvious to all … Mary and Joseph were completely, and all at once, scared to death and blissful beyond imagining, at their Mission on Earth?

They simply could not imagine raising any other child other than The One to whom they had the privilege and the duty of bringing to manhood.

In other words, in the common vernacular, they had their hands full! If, for one second, you tried to imagine how YOU might feel, if you were given the job of raising the Son of God?

How would you sleep at night? … is what I would want to know. It is really beyond my imagining. How some folks can’t get there is also beyond my imagining. Perhaps they have the ability to sleep through Extraordinary Events.

Bless you all,



P.S. Those of you new to the thread, posting questions that are repeating questions that have already been addressed … I would highly recommend you work your way through the thread, especially articles and the links for more articles provided by posters. The answers to the lineage of the “brothers” were already provided, in numerous scriptural and other references, and are fascinating reads. Live to learn! Learn to live! Love others along the way!

 

[Roy5]

’PURE" - A WORD MISUSED?

Frankly, I don't know whether Mary had other children or not. But what does trouble me is that so many posters seem to equate 'pure' with having no sexual relations.  That smacks of the puritanical notion, embraced by too many Catholics and others, that there is something impure about a married couple enjoying the blessing and intimacy of expressing their love phyically. Obviously, God intended humanity to have sex. The human species has a natural impulse, drive, to have sex. And how else would we "be fruitful and multiply"? Of course, King Solomon carried things much too far with his 600 wives and 1000 concubines. Yet - strangely - the Bible speaks of his great wisdom and we continue to honor him as such a 'wise man'. I would be tempted to apply a few different adjectives to him. 

 To me, the concept of the "Holy Family" doesn't preclude Mary, a dutiful mother and wife, and Joseph, a devoted husband and 'father', as a happily married couple who viewed sexual relations as a wonderful gift from God, and welcomed them joyfully both with a degree of reverence and certainly with a sense of celebration. I don't see why it's so outrageous if we envision them as 'one flesh' - as the scriptures and the wedding ceremony describe marriage. 

 And I see no impediment to entertaining the possibility that she may have had other children. The argument that most impresses me for Jesus being the only child is that on the cross he placed Mary in the care of John. If he had siblings, probably that wouldn''t have happened. Still, those who claim that scripture points to siblings may be right, also. Myself, it makes no difference! I don't believe we all have to agree on such matters. We are not saved by doctrinal confirmity - or by doctrine generally. We're saved by the mercy and grace and love of God. 

 We want our own family members to have happy marriages, including the beauty and love and fulfillment (and children) that can be enhanced by a good sexual relationship. Why would we want less for Mary and Joseph?
 
 God bless all the world - no exceptions.