That was an accidental second post of the same thing. The epistle of James was written by the half-brother of Jesus Christ.

Like I said, it may or may not be true that James could have been the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, I just don't think it is likely- I think it is more likely that they were cousins.

Yes, Jesus had literal siblings. Check out Mt 13:55 and Jn 7:1-9 (especially v5). It is widely believed (and talked about by the historian Josepheus who lived near the time of Christ) that Jesus brother James actually wrote the book of James. He is also mentioned in the book of Acts.

Yes, Jesus had literal siblings. Check out Mt 13:55 and Jn 7:1-9 (especially v5). It is widely believed (and talked about by the historian Josepheus who lived near the time of Christ) that Jesus brother James actually wrote the book of James. He is also mentioned in the book of Acts.

 

Older or younger? Siblings or half-siblings? And does the fact that the Greek word used often extended to other relatives (due to there being no word for cousin) hold relevance?

 

FWIW, I was completely unaware before today that people thought that Jesus may have siblings. I thought it was accepted that he did not. You learn something new every day!

Older or younger? Siblings or half-siblings? And does the fact that the Greek word used often extended to other relatives (due to there being no word for cousin) hold relevance?

 

FWIW, I was completely unaware before today that people thought that Jesus may have siblings. I thought it was accepted that he did not. You learn something new every day!

 

If they didn't use "cousin" how come Elizabeth was referred to as Mary's cousin?

If they didn't use "cousin" how come Elizabeth was referred to as Mary's cousin?

 

That's a good question, and one that I haven't considered. I don't have my Bible on me, but according to wikipedia, out of 5 bibles cited, only one (the King James) uses the word "cousin", and the word used is συγγενίς, which refers to various types of relatives.

 

I'm going to have to do more research on this and get back to you all.

I believe he did not have siblings, and here is a really good article on this topic. I'll summarize (a few of the arguments)

 

1. "Brother" and "sister" in Greek ("adelphos" and "adelphe", respectively) does not have the narrow definition that our usage does. Neither Greek nor Aramaic has a word for cousin, so this word was often used (note: this is not to say that those referred to Brethren of the Lord are his cousins, but that is possible as well). The link references some other times in Scripture in which the word "brother" is not used literally.

 

2. Interestingly, the article puts forth the idea that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth, but also had taken a vow of virginity for life- because if not, why would she say, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" When the angel said you shall conceive a son, there is no reason why she would not assume that angel was telling her to have relations once she was married- however, due to her vow, she wondered how the angel's orders and the vow wouldn't contradict each other.

 

3. Jesus is referred to as "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary".

 

1. That those words for brother and sister can mean more is certainly true. But, just because they can be used to mean something different, doesn't mean we can just apply the meaning that suits us best regardless of context. The context of many of those verses (Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56, etc) doesn't support the alternate interpretation.

 

2. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. The betrothal typically lasted a year, but the marriage wasn't consummated until the end. I don't think we know how long they had been betrothed, do we? The point being, its just as easy to assume that Mary believed the angel meant she would conceive very soon, before the time would arrive for her marriage to be consummated. Thus, to paraphrase, she questioned how she could conceive a son as a virgin.

 

3. Mark 1:16 refers to James as "the son of Zebedee". And, calls John his brother. Should we assume that John was James' cousin? This point offers no support for the argument.

 

And, what would you say to these verses...

 

Matthew 1:18, 24-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit...When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

 

Obviously, in relation to the subject of the thread, a woman not being a virgin doesn't necessarily mean she had children. However, since the whole point of the argument against Jesus having brothers and Mary having children is to support the claim that she remained a virgin her entire life, I think the two are closely related. And, this passage, IMO, provides the strongest support against the claim of perpeptual virginity for Mary.

That's how I feel as well. Not really from a particular biblical perspective, but just from a human one. Mary and Joseph were married, so "Bibicially" it was okay for them to have intercourse and have children.

 

Just on a natural level I think it would be normal for them to have had children, and as far as the Bible goes I see nothing as to where Mary was told to never have sex. She was a virgin when she had Jesus, but I don't think she had to remain like that for life. Her virginity made the birth "immaculate", so I don't think it was necessary for her to refrain from sex after she he was born because she was married.

 

I'm not coming from a set denomination, I just try to look at the humanistic side of the Bible, Koran or any other text.

The Immaculate Conception isn't refering to Mary's virginity when Our Lord was Conceived by the Holy Spirit . The Immaculate Conception does mean that her own Conception was free from the stain of origional sin so that she would be the Perfect Vessel to be the Mother of the Son of God ..

I'm not saying she wasn't allowed; I'm saying that it's possible that she took a vow of virginity, which still exists today (see "consecrated virgins" and priests' vow of celibacy). I'm not saying that the Bible deems it immoral for a married couple to have sex.

 

I get what you are saying about you can't imagine them not enjoying the pleasures of marriage, but A) plenty of people don't have sex (for a variety of reasons) and B) they weren't exactly a normal couple, between the angel visitations and the virgin births. :lol:

 

Basically it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion between Catholics and Protestants on their view of Mary. I consider Mary to be more than just a woman, I consider to be the model of Christian devotion.

 

No I cannot imagine that in Biblical times people were just married. Look, even Abraham had to go outside of his marriage to have a child, and both wanted that. I'm saying that not only do I not thing that it is likely, I'm saying that I'm not sure that it is possible in that day and age.

 

And I'm neither Christian nor Protestant. I've heard Catholics say that he may have had brothers and sisters, and Christians say that they didn't believe he did.

 

We cannot be sure that he didn't, but I would be willing to bet alot of money that at a minimum Mary didn't remain a virgin in her marriage. It isn't mentioned in the bible specifically. I don't think that she wouldn't have sex, why would she get married in that day and age? It was, and I quote a version of the bible to "be fruitful and multiply". (or something like that)

 

Actually, I don't think it is bad to think either way. Which ever way makes you feel better about your place in the world. I think it is kind of closeminded to be set in either direction though. I'm a little closed minded here as well, as I think that it is only natural in 3 AD that a married couple would have children, or at a minimum try to. I don't see any reason Mary would have had to not have had sex.

 

Like I said, it may or may not be true that James could have been the son of Joseph from a previous marriage, I just don't think it is likely- I think it is more likely that they were cousins.

 

If he were the son from a previous message, wouldn't he be mentioned during the story of Jesus' birth? Maybe, maybe not. I would say that he would be. Most likely, IF James was Jesus' brother he was younger and was born to Mary.

 

Older or younger? Siblings or half-siblings? And does the fact that the Greek word used often extended to other relatives (due to there being no word for cousin) hold relevance?

 

FWIW, I was completely unaware before today that people thought that Jesus may have siblings. I thought it was accepted that he did not. You learn something new every day!

 

I didn't really realize that people didn't think that until not too awful long ago.:thumb:

 

If they didn't use "cousin" how come Elizabeth was referred to as Mary's cousin?

 

:thumb:

 

I can't believe that we have found a place where we agree.

 

The Immaculate Conception isn't refering to Mary's virginity when Our Lord was Conceived by the Holy Spirit . The Immaculate Conception does mean that her own Conception was free from the stain of origional sin so that she would be the Perfect Vessel to be the Mother of the Son of God ..

 

Which is what I would have said had I had the time, sorry I was trying to take a break at work, but people kept asking me questions and things. Should have clarified.

I don't see any of those being believable or valid....

 

 

 

And thus, the premise of faith...believe what you do not understand.

And thus, the premise of faith...believe what you do not understand.

 

I know what faith is....

 

I also realize that there is a very high likelihood that Jesus did have brothers and/or sisters.

^ Agreed

I am confused, can someone tell me what chapter and verse it says that Mary mother of Jesus took a vowel of celebacy or is this just an assumption that is made by some people? Please, this is a serious question and I am hoping to get a serious and honest answer.

I am confused, can someone tell me what chapter and verse it says that Mary mother of Jesus took a vowel of celebacy or is this just an assumption that is made by some people? Please, this is a serious question and I am hoping to get a serious and honest answer.

 

I don't think this is mentioned anywhere in the bible.

I am confused, can someone tell me what chapter and verse it says that Mary mother of Jesus took a vowel of celebacy or is this just an assumption that is made by some people? Please, this is a serious question and I am hoping to get a serious and honest answer.

 

I don't think this is mentioned anywhere in the bible.

 

Not mentioned in the Bible- just a possibility. I'm not claiming it to be in Scripture.

Edited July 10, 200917 yr by cch5432

Matthew 1:18, 24-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit...When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

From the cited article:

 

that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

 

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

 

It is one thing to take the bible literally word-for-word, but it is even worse when we do so in English, simply because there are differences in translation.

 

There is no definitive proof in the New Testament that Mary was NOT a virgin her entire life.

 

FWIW, I've been doing research and I will conceded that it is totally possible and consistent with my faith that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, but I'm not sure how they factor into the Bible.