Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

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

“There were also other women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” Mk15:40 also Mt 27:56

“Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” Jn19:25

Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. Jesus’ mother’s sister, Mary, was married to Clopas, also known as Alphaeus, who had these children who were referred to as the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

James the younger, the son of Mary and Alphaeus, became one of Jesus’ discples. Acts1:13

Please, I pray you, conduct some basic research on these issues before levelling your accusations against the Church. Making false accusations puts one in league with the “accuser of our brethren”

“for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God” Rev 12:10

 

[Malachi4U]

If protestants believe Jesus had siblings from Blessed Mary and Joseph then why do protestants believe Jesus is God? Why do they believe in the Trinity - a Catholic word not found in the Bible? If you read the following verse it clearly states that Jesus was the son of Joseph and not God! It is the same exact verse they cite to prove Jsus had siblings.

St. Mt 13:55 (NIV) “55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”

After reading the verse above if we interpret it according to protestant opinions then Jesus had siblings and Jesus was NOT the son of God but rather the son of the carpenter. If Joseph is Jesus’ father then how can protestants ignore the significance this verse? Why do protestants whorship and adore Jesus as God if He is but the son of a carpenter?

Do they even ‘see’ the error of their logic through all its fog?

Either the Catholic Church is right and Jesus is the Son of God or the protestant interpretation is right and Jesus was but just another child of a carpenter with a bunch of siblings.

I’ll stick with Faith. A Faith that existed before protestants and will exist long after they are forgotten. I will stick with the Faith Christ gave us and His Catholic Church.

Protestant logic is a double standard and poorly formed at best as seen by that verse.

God bless,

PS, 3/4 of the worlds Christians do not believe Jesus had siblings. 3/4 of the worlds Christians venerate and honor Blessed Marry. The protestants are the 1/4 minority. If the schism Luther started was supposed to be great, it sure looks lacking after 500 years.

 

[Exporter]

Originally Posted by SPOKENWORD
I believe non catholic christians believe Mary had other children according to thier understanding of scripture. I also do believe she had other children because I believe God instituted marriage and that involves having children.God did say increase and multipy. Maybe He was refering to Math. This really has no bearing at all whether she had children or not as far as I am concerned.God Bless.

Spoken, The “brothers” of Jesus were step brothers. When Joseph married Mary , Joseph was an eldery man who had some children from his then dead first wife. You can read:
catholic-forum.com/saints/stj20001.htm Jerome heard the false story that Mary had “other children”. Jerome at first was angry and didnt answer the HERESY. Later Jerome did answer, Mary was ever-Virgin. She was proffesed to remein a virgin from age three. She was a Temple girl. All of the remained a virgin.

The Jewish Priests in the Temple were the ones who decided that it was time for Mary to stop sleeping in the Temple, she was about 15 years of age. The priests chose Joseph from a group of about 6 elderly men - as was the custom for Temple Girls. Spoken, Joseph know Mary had vowed to remain a virgin, since the Rabbis (Priests) had told him. That WAS the custom. So the so-called “brothers” of Jesus were Step Brothers.

 

[Malachi4U]

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…

Doesn’t make sense to you? Then try reading Scripture.

St. Luke 18:29 “29 He said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.””

The Bible appears to prove you wrong yet again. I’ll stick to what St. Luke writes in Sacred Scripture with divine inspiration from God. We can give up our wife for the kongdom of God. St. Joseph I am sure gave up his wife also for God and His kingdom.

A prisoner of Christ,

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Malachi4U:

Doesn’t make sense to you? Then try reading Scripture.

St. Luke 18:29 “29 He said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.””

The Bible appears to prove you wrong yet again. I’ll stick to what St. Luke writes in Sacred Scripture with divine inspiration from God. We can give up our wife for the kongdom of God. St. Joseph I am sure gave up his wife also for God and His kingdom.

A prisoner of Christ,

Hi Malachi, That is the reward for following Christ. It doesnt mean that we disown our families. God Bless

 

[CreosMary]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Tm. Im going to have to disagree with you. In 1timothy3.vs 4. He must be a good manager of his own household,keeping his children[if he had children] under his control without sacraficing his dignity,for if a man does not know how to manage his own house,how can he take care of the church of God. A bishop was to be married only ONCE. This could have 2 meanings. One that he could not be divorced. Two, that he was only allowed to have one wife. But the fact remains He was to be married. Remember St. Paul was an apostle,not a pastor. Two different roles in Gods Ministry. God Bless.

And Bishops are sucsessors of the apostles, they cannot marry. In the Eastern Church’s A married man can become a Priest but a single man once ordained cannot marry. Eastern Bishops are also not allowed to marry. The perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is established Catholic doctrine, ergo the Immaculate Conception and the Assunption of our Lady into Heaven. I trust and believe the Church which has the best minds and hearts contribute to definition of Catholic dogma for 2000 years rather than a self-proclaimed personal interpreter of Holy Scripture.
God Bless and Mary protect you

 

[mark_a]

“Hi my name is Jesus, I’d like to introduce you to my younger brother James. Say hi James. My other two younger brothers and my younger sister could not be here with me today, they’re taking their father Joseph out to lunch and our mother Blessed Mary is going with them. Blessed Mary is pregnant with yet another child. Oh yea, I’m here because I’m the only son of God begotten by my mother, a virgin till I was born. Yes that’s right, I am the Son of God born of the virgin Mary.”

Now imagine everyone laughing at Jesus and kicking him out.

I never once heard this. How relevent.

 

[guyfawkes]

Hello everyone. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not a “peripheral issue”. Protestant reasons for rejecting the teaching are not based on the Bible but are a logical spin-off from their concept of the Church.

Mary is the Church in a sense. She is a spotless virgin, ever consecrated to her Spouse. The Church is a spotless virgin,incapable of error or heresy according to our Faith.

Protestants believe the church to be capable of error. They say that all of the various denominations together,despite their contradictory teachings, go together to constitute the church. In their view truth and error can co-exit in the church. I´ve even heard dispensationalists saying that in the end-times the church will betray Christ.

If Mary had other children, they would have had original sin and she also would have fallen under the penalty of Gn. 3:16(under domination or yearning for her husband). The early Church´s teaching that Mary was a virgin was it´s way of saying she was sinless.

Do you get my drift? It´s a matter of ecclesiology. The Protestant Mary, commonplace,ignorant and sinful is a reflection of their definition of “church”.

If Mary was not true to her mission, why should we expect the church to be? If Mary was “ordinary”, so is the church. If she does not play an important role in mediating salvation, neither does the church.

Our Lady´s virginity,before,during and after is taught by the Church. We should be ready to die for it. Thank you

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi Malachi, That is the reward for following Christ. It doesnt mean that we disown our families. God Bless

Since when did “give up” mean “disown”?

Did not the apostles give up all to follow our Messiah? That does not mean they disowned their families by any means.

We can all read Scripture, not all ‘see’ Scripture. The apostles were with the Master Himself for three years and Jesus still had to explain His parables to them. Why do some people think they can self-interpret Scripture when not even those that walked with Christ could?

God Bless,

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

I would posit that because of Paul’s lifestyle - constantly traveling (missionary role) and teaching - that this really is the reason he even mentioned it. Imagine him having a wife and children at home only getting to see him on rare occasions. It would have been painful for him and his family.

You are correct that this is pure speculation on your part.

ahimsaman72:

I’ve always said that you can’t base a doctrine on one verse or even a couple of verses. You have to look at the big picture and weigh the pros and cons. I think there’s more cons on this issue. I believe it has only perpretated scandals. That’s all I can say…

Again, pure speculation on how many scandals there would be.

ahimsaman72:

The Orthodox have gotten along quite well with their practice of having wives. I wouldn’t say they are any less effective as spiritual counselors as Catholics.

Just out of curiosity - when you say the Orthodox churches have gotten along just fine - which I don’t doubt - how has there growth rate in members doing relative to the Catholic Church? I never hear much about them and don’t see any churches around for them. Are they growing? Stagnating?

Phil

 

[Ozzie]

Malachi4U:

If protestants believe Jesus had siblings from Blessed Mary and Joseph then why do protestants believe Jesus is God? Why do they believe in the Trinity - a Catholic word not found in the Bible? If you read the following verse it clearly states that Jesus was the son of Joseph and not God! It is the same exact verse they cite to prove Jsus had siblings. St. Mt 13:55 (NIV) "55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”

This verse, in CONTEXT, is giving an account of what some of the people in the synagogue IN HIS HOME TOWN said concerning Jesus in response to His teaching them in their synagogue. It’s not a theological statement on Christ’s deity. They said contemptuously (cf. vs. 57), “Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”

These people knew Him, He grew up in their sight, as did His earthly family. They knew his mother, His earthly father and His siblings. The verse, when understood in its CONTEXT, and interpreted in its normal sense, provides a very defensible argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary. The bizarre teaching that the words adelphoi (brothers) and adelphai (sisters) mean cousins does not fit the context. Also the story that these siblings are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage is totally fabricated, only to serve the “perpetual virginity” religious theory. It warrants absolutely no historical support.

If Joseph is Jesus’ father then how can protestants ignore the significance this verse? Why do protestants whorship and adore Jesus as God if He is but the son of a carpenter?

The real question is how can anyone ignore the real significance of this verse? The statement by His home town people was not based on theology but observation. They knew His earthly father, His mother and His siblings. And on that basis alone they rejected Him as Messiah and took offense even at the signs He performed. Though they were wrong about who He was, they were not wrong as to who His earthly family was, including His siblings whom they list by name.

The fact that Joseph and Mary went on to have children of their own has absolutely no bearing on the deity of Jesus Christ. That Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, that whom she conceived in her womb was of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph, certainly does. But it makes perfect sense that God chose Joseph and Mary to be His earthly father and mother and that the Son would grow up and mature in His humanity within the confines of an otherwise very normal Jewish family. The only things we know for certain about Mary are found in the Scriptures. And these divinely inspired writing do not even hint to Mary’s perpetual virginity. This story was developed by men AFTER the historical, Biblical events and the Apostolic age.

It wouldn’t matter if 100 percent of Christianity believes in her perpetual virginity (but God is gracious), it is what’s* revealed *(not believed) that is the source of divine truth.

 

[Ozzie]

guyfawkes:

Protestant reasons for rejecting the teaching are not based on the Bible but are a logical spin-off from their concept of the Church.

To the contrary, my friend, the reason for rejecting the “perpetual” story is based solely on Scripture (that is, the lack of it). In fact, your Mary/Church analogy has no Biblical or Apostolic support. And your analogy is based on an assertion, not established or provable fact.

Mary is the Church in a sense. She is a spotless virgin, ever consecrated to her Spouse. The Church is a spotless virgin,incapable of error or heresy according to our Faith.

This analogy flies in the face of reality. Have you not studied any Church History? In the early church the vast majority of the Bishops, East and West, adhered to the Arian doctrine regarding the deity of Christ. Christ Himself rebuked six of the seven churches in Asia Minor because of their erroneous ways in the Book of Revelation.

I´ve even heard dispensationalists saying that in the end-times the church will betray Christ.

Dispensationalists do not teach that the "True Church" will apostatize, but that the true Church, made up of all true believers down through the centuries since Pentecost, will be taken up to ever be with the Lord. Those who have died in Christ will rise first, i.e, be bodily resurrected (this will include Mary), and we who are living at that time will be translated, alive, from mortal to immortal (1 Thess. 4:15-18; 1 Cor. 15:51).

The early Church´s teaching that Mary was a virgin was it´s way of saying she was sinless.

Yet neither the written Word of God, nor any Apostles, ever state that Mary was sinless.

If Mary was not true to her mission, why should we expect the church to be? If Mary was “ordinary”, so is the church. If she does not play an important role in mediating salvation, neither does the church.

Yet Scripture never presents Mary any other way but “ordinary.” That’s the beauty of the virgin birth. And the true Church is made up of “ordinary” people (sinners) redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. You in fact destroy, or at least becloud, that magnificent grace of God when you make Mary into something she is not. When you make the Church into something it is not. When you assign attributes to Mary that are not truly hers. The birth of her First Born is presented as extraordinary, but Mary is not. The Son is extraordinary, but the mother is not.

Mary did fulfill the divine mission appointed to her. And she will (future) receive her reward along with the rest of us who have believed the Gospel message concerning Jesus Christ and His redemptive work on the cross on the behalf of all men. Mary too will yet stand before the “bema” seat of Christ, her works appraised, and receive her reward (1 Cor. 3:10-17). Until then, she, along with all the other saints (true believers) who have died in Christ, await the resurrection of their bodies (i.e., the “redemption of our bodies,” as stated in Rom. 8:23).

Do you get my drift? It´s a matter of ecclesiology. The Protestant Mary, commonplace,ignorant and sinful is a reflection of their definition of “church”.

Yes, indeed, I get your drift. It’s a matter of a Mary presented by the written Word of God (Divine revelation), or a Mary presented by the fertile imaginations and words of “ordinary” men. It’s a Church based on the teachings found in Divine Revelation, or a Church based on the teachings of ordinary men.

Our Lady´s virginity,before,during and after is taught by the Church. We should be ready to die for it.

A senseless death it would be, indeed.

 

[Jaypeeto]

Since I’m in my office and don’t have my bible with me, I can’t quote chapter and verse. Nonetheless, Jesus told the unbelievers of his day that “you search the scriptures because you think that in them you will find eternal life, but it is they who testify of ME”.

In similar fashion, anti-catholics search the scriptures because they think that through them they will find the Truth, but those same scriptures bear testimony TO THE CHURCH, established by Christ, on a rock, against which the gates of hell would never prevail. Now, if the church has ever gone out of existence and had to be restored by the Protestants, then Christ made a false prophecy. Similarly, if the Church has ever defined a lie as DOGMA, then the church has FAILED in her primary mission and thus also in THIS case the gates of hell would have prevailed, which of course would convict Christ of prophecying falsely. Christ prophesied a church that would be built on a rock and endure until the end of time, with HE HIMSELF leading and guiding it through the Holy Spirit. That is why St. Paul said that the CHURCH is the PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH.

Love, Jaypeeto

 

[Malachi4U]

Ozzie:

This verse, in CONTEXT, is giving an account of what some of the people in the synagogue IN HIS HOME TOWN said concerning Jesus in response to His teaching them in their synagogue. It’s not a theological statement on Christ’s deity. They said contemptuously (cf. vs. 57), “Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” …

Gods peace be with you Ozzie,

When and who were the first Christians to write opinions about this verse in Scripture and state that Jesus had siblings? When did the belief that Jesus had siblings become widespread and why? Before we had a NT what did Christians write about the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary? Before we had a NT what did Christians write about siblings of Jesus?

Thanks for your help if you can find these sources.

 

[mtr01]

Jaypeeto:

Since I’m in my office and don’t have my bible with me, I can’t quote chapter and verse. Nonetheless, Jesus told the unbelievers of his day that “you search the scriptures because you think that in them you will find eternal life, but it is they who testify of ME”.

In similar fashion, anti-catholics search the scriptures because they think that through them they will find the Truth, but those same scriptures bear testimony TO THE CHURCH, established by Christ, on a rock, against which the gates of hell would never prevail. Now, if the church has ever gone out of existence and had to be restored by the Protestants, then Christ made a false prophecy. Similarly, if the Church has ever defined a lie as DOGMA, then the church has FAILED in her primary mission and thus also in THIS case the gates of hell would have prevailed, which of course would convict Christ of prophecying falsely. Christ prophesied a church that would be built on a rock and endure until the end of time, with HE HIMSELF leading and guiding it through the Holy Spirit. That is why St. Paul said that the CHURCH is the PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH.

Love, Jaypeeto

Your scripture quote is John 5:39, and I think your analysis is spot on

 

[Ozzie]

Malachi4U:

Gods peace be with you Ozzie,

When and who were the first Christians to write opinions about this verse in Scripture and state that Jesus had siblings? When did the belief that Jesus had siblings become widespread and why? Before we had a NT what did Christians write about the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary? Before we had a NT what did Christians write about siblings of Jesus?

Thanks for your help if you can find these sources.

It’s not what is believed by men but what is revealed in God’s written Word that constitutes the true Christian faith. We know nothing for certain about Mary except what is revealed in God’s Word. Neither the Apostles nor any of the writers of the N.T. Books wrote anything about Mary being a "perpetual virgin" (Scripture testifies differently), her “immaculate conception,” nor her bodily “Assumption” into heaven. Nor does Scripture speak anything concerning all the heavenly positions men have assigned to her down through the centuries.

One may search to find out what men believed about Mary after the Apostolic age, but that would change nothing. The N.T. was written within the Apostolic age by divinely inspired men who knew Mary. What would it matter what men, who didn’t know her, who were born long after the Biblical events, believed about her? What is revealed about her in God’s immutabled Word is what is to be believed. It’s dangerous to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).