Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?

[Catholic4aReasn]

SPOKENWORD:

Doesnt the catholic church teach that Mary remained a virgin? If thats true you cannot remain a virgin and have an itimate relationship.

Hi Spokenword!

“Intimate” doesn’t mean “sexual”.

**Main Entry: [2]in·ti·mate
Pronunciation: **'in-t&-m&t
**Function: **adjective
**Etymology: **alteration of obsolete intime, from Latin intimus
**Date: **1632
1 a : INTRINSIC, ESSENTIAL b : belonging to or characterizing one’s deepest nature
2 : marked by very close association, contact, or familiarity <intimate knowledge of the law>
3 a : marked by a warm friendship developing through long association b : suggesting informal warmth or privacy <intimate clubs>
4 : of a very personal or private nature

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[mean_owen]

Katholikos:

Catholics know Mary in three roles: daughter of God the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and Mother of God the Son. But Mary is not a spouse in the carnal sense.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARYINSC.htm
“Mary is the “spouse”: not only the virginal, legal spouse of St. Joseph (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27), but the virginal, real spouse of God the Father who willed her to be the Mother, according to His human nature, of His only-begotten Son (Gal 4:4); the spouse of God the Son, the redeemer, who intimately associated her with Himself in His redemptive work, as the new Eve beside the “new Adam”; the spouse of God the Holy Spirit, who, overshadowing her enabled her to conceive Jesus (Lk 1:35).”

credo.ndirect.co.uk/conceived.html

“It should also be made clear that at no time has Christian belief suggested that God’s part of this miracle was sexual. It has sometimes been interpreted that way by members of other religions and that is part of the reason why Muslims find the concept of God having a Son as repulsive.”

I don’t know what Gus meant. Let’s ask him. Gus, what did you mean? I’d be surprise if he intended any meaning other than the orthodox Catholic one.

JMJ Jay

Jay- good point. I should’ve asked Gus directly.

By the way, we are now getting to the essence of my questions from earlier, as to “why” it’s important that Mary retained her virginity.

 

[LisaH]

I think that it is important to believe in the dogma that Mary was Ever-Virgin for one simple reason:

She was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Spokenword!

“Intimate” doesn’t mean “sexual”.

**Main Entry: [2]in·ti·mate
Pronunciation: **'in-t&-m&t
**Function: **adjective
**Etymology: **alteration of obsolete intime, from Latin intimus
**Date: **1632
1 a : INTRINSIC, ESSENTIAL b : belonging to or characterizing one’s deepest nature
2 : marked by very close association, contact, or familiarity <intimate knowledge of the law>
3 a : marked by a warm friendship developing through long association b : suggesting informal warmth or privacy <intimate clubs>
4 : of a very personal or private nature

In Christ,
Nancy

Hi Nancy ,I was only trying to be polite,sorry I didnt use the right word but im sure you know what I meant. God Bless

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Nancy ,I was only trying to be polite,sorry I didnt use the right word but im sure you know what I meant. God Bless

So, yet another example of self-interpretation and the error found in it?

So, Blessed Mary and Joseph could have been intimate too! How wonderfull, more proof against siblings of Jesus.

God bless

 

[Exporter]

SPOKENWORD http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_342894”, true);
Senior Member

From many of your past posts we know you are not Catholic and most of us just overlook your sometimes misguided posts. But when you in your first post on this thread appeared I thought it deserved a responce.

For now , in short, I will relay what I have found concerning “the brothers of Christ”. Joseph was elderly when the Jewish Priests selected him to marry Mary. Joseph was a widower who had several son by his then dead wife. So Jesus did have “Half-Brothers”, not brothers for Mary was ever Virgin. They were half-brothers!:tsktsk:

 

[SPOKENWORD]

SPOKENWORD http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_online.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_342894”, true);
Senior Member

From many of your past posts we know you are not Catholic and most of us just overlook your sometimes misguided posts. But when you in your first post on this thread appeared I thought it deserved a responce.

For now , in short, I will relay what I have found concerning “the brothers of Christ”. Joseph was elderly when the Jewish Priests selected him to marry Mary. Joseph was a widower who had several son by his then dead wife. So Jesus did have “Half-Brothers”, not brothers for Mary was ever Virgin. They were half-brothers!:tsktsk:

Hi Exporter,Where did you get that information? I thought the Holy Spirit selected Joseph,not the Jewish Priests.Just curious.!! God Bless

 

[john_ennis]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Malachi,Some great story telling but still all assumptions.Personally to me there is no issue here. Thats why I said begotten son and yes there could be more sons but not from heaven.Even the people in Jesus day believed he had brothers and sisters. Good question to ask when you enter into heaven. God Bless.

Hi Spokenword,

Speaking of assumptions. “The people in Jesus’s day believed he had brothers and sisters?” Since you didn’t ask them, I assume you are quite certain of the precise meaning of the inspired writers’ word for “brethren.” Perhaps, you suppose, since they were inspired, we MUST accept it as WE understand the word? Yet you and I both agree, I’m sure, that the best these relatives could have been were half-siblings (since Jesus shared his “biological” father with no one).

If it could mean half-siblings, why not “cousins,” as the word at that time often meant, and as Martin Luther went to his grave asserting?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

john ennis:

Hi Spokenword,

Speaking of assumptions. “The people in Jesus’s day believed he had brothers and sisters?” Since you didn’t ask them, I assume you are quite certain of the precise meaning of the inspired writers’ word for “brethren.” Perhaps, you suppose, since they were inspired, we MUST accept it as WE understand the word? Yet you and I both agree, I’m sure, that the best these relatives could have been were half-siblings (since Jesus shared his “biological” father with no one).

If it could mean half-siblings, why not “cousins,” as the word at that time often meant, and as Martin Luther went to his grave asserting?

Hi John, Why was is it not possible for Mary and Joseph to have other children after Jesus? Every other marriage that God joined together has brought forth the act of intimacy,of giving of each others love[sexual relations]Wasnt that the purpose of the sacrament of marriage,to go and multiply and bring forth children. I dont see why the church has held to thier beliefs,like it was demeaning to express this gift of love. Doesnt make any sense to me. God Bless

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

Im sorry you saw what I said as catholic bashing for that was the furthest thing from my mind. I was being a little humorous but I guess that did not go well over you. Of course I think catholics are christians,again I dont know where you got that from.Allot of assumptions I guess. By the way we are adopted sons and daughters in the family of God. So we are Gods siblings. Again im sorry for ruffling your feathers. God Bless. Quote; What do you call1&billion catholics that are not christian? I would call them LOST.

When I saw your response I did not think that you were saying that Catholics were not Christians. That was stated by the person who made the next reply. It is good to see that you have this attitude because there are many who do not believe that Catholics are Christians. I agree with you that we are the adopted sons and daughters of God.

And no we are not Lost. We have been found and we are in God’s love.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi John, Why was is it not possible for Mary and Joseph to have other children after Jesus? Every other marriage that God joined together has brought forth the act of intimacy,of giving of each others love[sexual relations]Wasnt that the purpose of the sacrament of marriage,to go and multiply and bring forth children. I dont see why the church has held to thier beliefs,like it was demeaning to express this gift of love. Doesnt make any sense to me. God Bless

Spoken Word, the Scripture actually says that Mary not have other children. It might not be explicit to you, but it is implicitly there and I am supported in this view by both Martin Luther and John Calvin as well as Ulrich Zwingli.

The Church honours marriage as a Sacrament where husband and wife plus God come together to form the nucleus of the family. We believe that the intimacy of Marriage is something that is Sacred. However, this argument that you use is one that is not compatible with understanding the Holy Family.

Who is the Father of Jesus? It is not Joseph except that God made Joseph the adoptive father of Jesus. This was necessary because a young woman could not bear a child without a husband in the Judaic society. The woman who bore the Son of God had to have protection.

Quite often we think of the marriage of Joseph and Mary in our own terms. I have seen Catholics speculating that Joseph proposed to Mary and that their engagement period was similar to our own, and that the two were “in love”. However, what is wrong with this kind of speculation about Joseph and Mary is a lack of knowledge about the Judaic society of the time. This young couple would not have come together in the same way as ourselves, it would be more than likely that there had been a matchmaker involved. Now according to tradition Mary had been in the Temple and her husband was chosen for her by the High Priest. This is possible but I will not even speculate on that possibility either. The traditional story comes from the Protevangelium of James and it sets out how Joseph was chosen as the husband of Mary. He had to be from the same tribe as Mary, according to the Judaic laws covering inheritance. So it is true that both Joseph and Mary came from the House of David.

According to that same tradition, Mary made a vow of virginity and her husband to be was informed of that vow. In the Judaic tradition, since he had been informed of her vow, Joseph had a say on whether or not she was expected to break the vow and become his wife in the fullest sense. The words of Scripture tell me that Joseph did not expect Mary to break that vow. He struggled with the fact that she was pregnant because he knew that there had been a vow of virginity, and that he was not the father.

To be continued

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Spoken Word,

let me continue here about why Mary and Joseph did not come together in the manner which you speak.

There is a rule in Judaism that if a man is engaged or married to a woman who has relations and a child to another man, then he cannot have relations with her because she is “unclean”. Under this Jewish law Joseph would have to refrain from having sexual relations with Mary because she bore the Son of God, yet she should not be seen to be technically “unclean” in the sense of that law because she has borne the Son of God.

The Scripture itself gives us other hints that Mary and Joseph together did not have other children (and I should point out that the four men who are called the “brothers” of Jesus are older than he is). For example from Ezekiel:

"He brought me back to the outer east gate of the sanctuary. It was shut. Yahweh said to me: “This gate will be kept shut. No one will open it or go through it, since Yahweh the God of Israel has gone through it. And so it must be kept shut.” (Ez 44:1)

Yes, I agree that this is an obscure passage from the Scripture and if it is interpreted in the most literal sense then it does not apply to Mary. However, let us look more closely at the words, and examine why this relates to the Woman who has borne the Son of God.

Assuming that all who claim to be Christian believe that God became flesh through a young virgin by the name of Mary, let us examine more closely how this verse applies to the Woman who bore God:

1. John the Evangelist tells us in the prologue of his Gospel:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh ; he had his tent pitched among us. And we have seen his Glory, the Glory of the Only Son coming from the Father…” (John 1:1-14)

The Evangelist is clearly linking Jesus to God, as the Word, the Son of God.

1. Ezekiel tells us:

“Then I saw the Glory of the God of Israel approaching from the east with a sound like the sound of the ocean… The Glory of Yahweh arrived at the Temple by the east gate…” (Ezekiel 43:1- 4)

1. In the infancy narratives we learn from Luke the Evangelist:

“Simeon took the child in his arms and blessed God saying: Now oh Lord you can dismiss your servant in peace for you have fulfilled your word and my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:28-30)

If we accept that Jesus, who is God made Flesh, was born in the normal way, that is through the normal gestation of a child, then the “east gate” in the Book of Ezekiel also applies to Mary. Therefore, since it is Yahweh who has passed through her, then no other can enter by the same “gate”. In the words of the prophet Ezekiel, the gate was to remain shut.

This is consistent with the fact that Mary did not bear other children, especially when not one of these “other” children are named in the Scripture.

Maggie

 

[SPOKENWORD]

MaggieOH:

Spoken Word,

let me continue here about why Mary and Joseph did not come together in the manner which you speak.

There is a rule in Judaism that if a man is engaged or married to a woman who has relations and a child to another man, then he cannot have relations with her because she is “unclean”. Under this Jewish law Joseph would have to refrain from having sexual relations with Mary because she bore the Son of God, yet she should not be seen to be technically “unclean” in the sense of that law because she has borne the Son of God.

The Scripture itself gives us other hints that Mary and Joseph together did not have other children (and I should point out that the four men who are called the “brothers” of Jesus are older than he is). For example from Ezekiel:

"He brought me back to the outer east gate of the sanctuary. It was shut. Yahweh said to me: “This gate will be kept shut. No one will open it or go through it, since Yahweh the God of Israel has gone through it. And so it must be kept shut.” (Ez 44:1)

Yes, I agree that this is an obscure passage from the Scripture and if it is interpreted in the most literal sense then it does not apply to Mary. However, let us look more closely at the words, and examine why this relates to the Woman who has borne the Son of God.

Assuming that all who claim to be Christian believe that God became flesh through a young virgin by the name of Mary, let us examine more closely how this verse applies to the Woman who bore God:

1. John the Evangelist tells us in the prologue of his Gospel:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh ; he had his tent pitched among us. And we have seen his Glory, the Glory of the Only Son coming from the Father…” (John 1:1-14)

The Evangelist is clearly linking Jesus to God, as the Word, the Son of God.

1. Ezekiel tells us:

“Then I saw the Glory of the God of Israel approaching from the east with a sound like the sound of the ocean… The Glory of Yahweh arrived at the Temple by the east gate…” (Ezekiel 43:1- 4)

1. In the infancy narratives we learn from Luke the Evangelist:

“Simeon took the child in his arms and blessed God saying: Now oh Lord you can dismiss your servant in peace for you have fulfilled your word and my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:28-30)

If we accept that Jesus, who is God made Flesh, was born in the normal way, that is through the normal gestation of a child, then the “east gate” in the Book of Ezekiel also applies to Mary. Therefore, since it is Yahweh who has passed through her, then no other can enter by the same “gate”. In the words of the prophet Ezekiel, the gate was to remain shut.

This is consistent with the fact that Mary did not bear other children, especially when not one of these “other” children are named in the Scripture.

Maggie

Thanks Maggie,for all the work you put in. You make some very good points.Something to think and pray about. God bless.

 

[john_ennis]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi John, Why was is it not possible for Mary and Joseph to have other children after Jesus? Every other marriage that God joined together has brought forth the act of intimacy,of giving of each others love[sexual relations]Wasnt that the purpose of the sacrament of marriage,to go and multiply and bring forth children. I dont see why the church has held to thier beliefs,like it was demeaning to express this gift of love. Doesnt make any sense to me. God Bless

I was very specifically addressing your positive statement that Jesus did have brothers, and people of his time knew it. You have subtlely changed the issue.
Peace.
John

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

Thanks Maggie,for all the work you put in. You make some very good points.Something to think and pray about. God bless.

Thank you Spokenword, there really was not much work that had gone into what I had written. If anything my thoughts on the subject are incomplete.

However, what I will add is that John Calvin had a view choice things to say about Helvidius who is the one that began this whole idea that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters. The early Church Fathers wrote against this heresy of Helvidius, and that too is an indication that the early Church passed on the tradition that Jesus is the Only Son of Mary.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the notion that Joseph was an elderly widow who had other sons via another dead woman. This is pure speculation by the Greek author of the Protoevangelion of James, and other similar sources. That document was not written until about the third century any way. Its use to us is that it contains some of the early Church traditions, but these traditions have also been embellished.

Maggie

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

2 Thes 2:15 comes to mind. We are called to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we have been taught, either by word of mouth or by letter.

When read and deciphered like a history book or documentary the Holy Scriptures are inconclusive in this matter. This means we are to hold true to tradition if we want to remain obedient. It is a simplistic view, one that requires faith.

After all Jesus didn’t spend time writing an instruction manual while he walked the earth. He could have. Mohamed and Buddha did.

Jesus was more interested in people and building a body of faith, his Church. Each and every Christian can trace themselves to the Catholic Church if they really tried.

This is the dilemma faced by non-Catholics. If they are to hold fast to the traditions that they’ve been taught, how to read and interpret scripture being one, then how can they be objective in their quest for the truth.

Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit teaches and enables us to worship in spirit and truth.

If one believes that Mary did not have other children, but she really did, is their any harm in that?

But, if Mary espoused herself to the Holy Spirit and consecrated herself to Him and you profess that she didn’t, then you dishonor Mary and the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That is not a position that any rational thinking person should ever want to be caught in!

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Exporter,Where did you get that information? I thought the Holy Spirit selected Joseph,not the Jewish Priests.Just curious.!! God Bless

OH NO! Say it didn’t happen! For once Spoken and I agree!

As Mr. Bill used to say, “OH NOOOOOO!”

Go in Gods peace,

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Malachi4U:

OH NO! Say it didn’t happen! For once Spoken and I agree!

As Mr. Bill used to say, “OH NOOOOOO!”

Go in Gods peace,

Hi Malachi,Just wait there is more to come im sure. God Bless

 

[LDSBOB]

Hi Malachi4u:

There are several scriptures that say that Mary had children. Here’s two of them.

Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

Not sure how the Catholic Church or any other Christian church can believe that Mary the Mother of Jesus didn’t have additional children by Joseph her husband when there are so many scriptures that show otherwise.

Of course many churches can change, through false interpretations scriptures to suit their needs but they do so without the sanction of God and will be held accountable to God and their followers for misrepresenting the truth.

LDSBOB

 

[LDSBOB]

To Katholikos:

There are several scriptures that say that Mary had children. Here’s two of them. If you want to deny them and wish they didn’t exist go ahead, but you are denying Biblical truth.
Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

Not sure how the Catholic Church or any other Christian church can believe that Mary the Mother of Jesus didn’t have additional children by Joseph her husband when there are so many scriptures that show otherwise.

Of course many churches can change, through false interpretations scriptures to suit their needs but they do so without the sanction of God and will be held accountable to God and their followers for misrepresenting the truth.