«Home

Did Jesus Have Brothers?

I have read parts of the bible, where the brothers of Jesus were talked about and other part were twas said that mary died a virgin. Also crowning it is the part in Isaiah were twas said that no one would pass through the same road he passed and some people relating that to the birth. So kindly send your suggestions to convince me about the actual state of Jesus's family

Avatar
Newbie
14 answers

I can't find a biblical verse saying Mary had other children, so I think James and others were not blood brothers. I think during those days "brother" was the term used for close friends, family members and disciples of Christ. If I am wrong, please forgive my carnal mind

0
Avatar
Newbie

1. Are u catholic or otherwise

2. Kindly go through my previous post and contribute to the points raised line by line, instead of repeating the same nonsense that @chukwudi seems to have been spewing since.

- show how the catholic church was the first church using the bible.

- show through the bible how mary was remained a virgin after giving birth to the Messiah.

- show through the bible how some catholics claim that the Messiah never had brothers.

John the Baptist was the cousin of the Messiah, the bible did not call him is brother. The bible was very clear when it called certain people the brothers of the Messiah, hence the catholic dogma and idolatory about Mary being a perpetual virgin is nothing more than idolatory and semeremis worship or the nimrod order.

If you take time to really study ur bible you would realise that churches like Galatian church, corinthian church, thessalonica church, sardis, philadelphia etc are clearly churches that physically existed during and around the time of the lifetime of the early appostles. Not one mention of the catholic church was ever made. The Roman church was just one of the different churches setup by the apostles. The apostles never called themselves popes nor head. Istead your patience and decision to actually study and read the bible would lead u to understand that Paul was actually writing those churches in most if not all of his books in the New Testament. Hence your bullshit about catholic church just falls on its head and shows up as the typical brainwashed nonsense that it is.

Bible books had existed before anything called catholics, catholics did not help Paul write the letters. The letter of paul had already existed.

Catholics were amongst people used just as the Creator also sometimes uses the Devil (who is evil) to accomplish something good. Hence participation of the catholics alongside other people in the compilation of the bible does not mean they have authority of authorship over the bible. STOP DECEIVING URSELF.

Catholics were not the only ones who contributed to the compilation of the Bible, yet you never hear others claiming to have been the ones who wrote the bible. Because catholics contributed to compiling the bible does not mean they have authority over it.

Does ur common sense even tell u that part of the reason there was a split was because of the heresy of the catholics.

3. The catholic church must be opposed cus they are contributing to the eternal destruction of so many souls. the Messiah did not die so that some people can still deceive other people into worshipping false gods.

4. Can you kindly do ur best to point out where wat i have said has gone against the Bible.

5. All i have pointed out are areas in which the catholic church tradition and history completely goes against the bible.

6. Stop deceiving yourself there was never anything like the catholic church during the early church. The Messiah himself while addressing the 7 churches in the book of revelation did not mention any catholic church

7. Paul did not setup any catholic church, so wats errant nonsense are u talking about by saying the catholic church was the first church. Where and how was it the first church please show me using the bible.

8. Peter did not setup any catholic church, so wats the errant nonsense are u talking about by saying the catholic church was the first church. Where and how was it the first church please show me using the bible.

9. Go through my previous post line by line, point by point and show me using the bible how everthing i have said is wrong.

10. The problem that you catholic apologisers have is that u do not believe the Bible, instead u tend to believe the personality of the pastor/pope/bishop or tradition of the so called church. Hence why so many false churches and fake pastors are making so much money deceiving people today because people are too lazy to check the scriptures for themselves. Hence why ur ignorance is leading u to defend the catholic church agains the bible even though ur common sense ought to tell u that the Bible must come first at all times.

11. By the way i know that the Anglican church is merely an toned down english version of the catholic church without mary worshipping and a few other things. I know the history and i likewise do not reckon with the Anglican church. One heresy of the Anglican church is that they also have the king as the head of the church just as catholics have the pope as the head of their own church contrary to what the bible says that the Messiah Himself is the Head of the church.

Instead of posting irrelevant things about the anglican church, and something that has nothing to do with this topic and my original post, kindly do urself a favour, pick up ur bible and be checking catholic doctrine one by one in comparison with wat the bible actually says.

I was born into the Anglican church, nevertheless that does not stop me from revealing the heresies within the Anglican church. Responsibility of each and every Christian is to first and foremost follow the Bible to the letter even if it means exposing the lies and heresies of your past beliefs. Until u are able to do that, keep deceiving urself as u continue to claim to believe in the bible wen you clearly do not.

0
Avatar
Newbie

About Jesus having siblings or no Siblings, lets look at it this way. The bible gave an account of Jesus in is early Pre-adolescent and his later years when he was age 30 dying at the age of about 33. Obviously there is a gap of about 20 to 25 years in his history. Why do we have this gap? lets look at it this way - the bible is a compilation of known and available scripts at the point of compilation. Please recall that before the compilation, the roman emperor prosecuted Christians- killing them and burning their scrolls and written manuscripts. During that period it is very possible that scripts which account for the missing years were found and destroyed or the scripts were well hiding in a cave and the owner could not located it after or the owner of the script was tortured to produce the script but did not produce the script from where it was hiding but the owner died during torture and the scripts remained lost after the bible as we have it now is compiled.

So we cannot say he did have siblings or he didn't, why will Mary not want to have other biological children with Joseph?

Just a thought

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Pilgrim and no2 atheism

So wikipedia is no longer a reliable internet link abi?

Sorry to disapoint you ,on the contrary ,wikipedia is the most reliable internet database in the world today.

To post on wikipedia You have to provide a reliable reference otherwise your post will be deleted.I dont practise sola scripture since it is on itself unbiblical.I will continue reading scriptures that were written by the early church fathers since they gave us the bible.

If it turns out in the end that they were telling us lies then we are all going down ,since the bible itself will likely be part of their lies.

The gospels did not disclose the names of their authors,likewise acts,and the letter to the hebrews .These early church fathers did.

The Apostles did not leave us any bible ,these early church fathers did.

The Jews who were the chosen race told us Jesus was a fake ,so there are still expecting the messiah .It was these early fathers trhat continued where the apostles stopped men like Clement of rome (mentioned in the Bible),Ignatius of antioch Polycarp of smyrna .Ireneaus of Lyons e.t.c were the ones God used to continue passing the message of the risen christ .They like the apostles before them suffered matyrdom for the faith.

I dont think they were liars,they lived by example.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Sorry, I didn't make any claims as to the invention of a Greek word for "cousin" - you made that claim, and we're waiting excitedly for you to show when, how, by who, and where it was first used. After doing so, please go on and show us how you conveniently dribbled in your own idea to make Jesus' brothers his "cousins" while forgetting your claim for the "later invention".

Both these particular James and Jude were identified as Jesus' brothers in Matthew 13:55-56 - in those verses, they were not called 'slaves' or 'cousins'. In Galatians 1:19, this same James is called "James the Lord's brother", not the Lord's "slave" or "cousin". Relationships in family are not the same as positions in service. Hence, if Jude referred to himself as servant instead of "brother" or "cousin", it does not negate what was stated about Jesus' brothers in matthew 13:55-56.

You first quoted Luke 3, please show us the verse where it says what you're claiming up there.

What does it matter if anything is "proven" to you? I showed you from the English translations and compared the Greek to show what I did. If the Greek word συγγενής (suggenēs) was not evidently in use at the time of the NT, please proceed and demonstrate your magic. That would be such a performance and quite entertaining. The same Greek word is translated variously in our English Bibles as either "cousin", "kinsfolk" or "kinsmen" - which is not the same word used for someone's "brother" in the NT. What is more amazing is that even the English version Douay Rheims favoured by Roman Catholics uses the word "cousin" in Luke 1:36 (check it up here).

I didn't make your claim for you: since you claimed it was a later "invention", please put some more substance to your claim and show something more cogent to that same claim. The Catholic translators must have forgotten your own "later invention" when using the word "cousin" in Luke 1:36, no?

Ezekiel 44:2 was not referring to the Incarnation in any way.

I didn't confuse them; and if you have got some more substance and not reading your ideas into the body of the references, you can see you got it all mixed up before I helped sorted you out.

0
Avatar
Newbie

are you sure you really read my post ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I was not really preview to this information in the past mark15:40 and John 19:25. I believe the bible has never contradicted itself seeing the word in Isaiah and these stories about Jesus's brothers. You've really spoken well.

0
Avatar
Newbie

can you look at

and

then explain how you concluded the people mentioned were his cousins?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Sorry to disapoint you Mary never had anyother children besides Jesus .Let us carefully examine these Bible passages to find out who these supposed brothers of Jesus where

Matt 13:55-56

Isn't he the Carpenter's son,isn,t mary his mother and aren,t JAMES,JOSEPH,SIMON AND JUDAS his brothers aren't all his sisters living here

matt27:56

Among the women were mary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES AND JOSEPH and the wife of zebedee

Mark 6:3

Isn't he the carpenter ,the son of mary and brother of JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON? Aren't his sisters living

here?

mark15:40

Some women wre there looking from a distance .Among them weremary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER AND JOSEPH AND salome

John 19:25

standing close to Jesus cross were his mother,his mothers sister MARY the wife of cleopas and mary magdalene

so from the above passagesyou could so clearly see this JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON WERE CHILDREN OF jESUS'S MOTHERS SISTER MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS .

They were actually his cousins not half brothers .besidesin the gospel of luke 3:41-51 Jesus at theageof 12 is mentioned as the only child of his parents.

Mindyou JAMES was an influential christian leader of the first century,he was the first bishop of jerusalem and author of the epistle of james.he was the james who spoke at the councilof jeruasalem in acts 15.

for more about James seethe link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

0
Avatar
Newbie

I did mention Simon.

Matthew 13:55 -  "And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Mark 6:3  -   ", brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon"

The "Brothers" of Jesus

Source: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

Jesus who was preexistent as the Word of God took up residency in the womb of Mary which made Him the Son of God who became the Son of Man so as to make man become sons of God. (John 1:1-3,14)

After His incarnation He had at least six siblings, four brothers and at least two sisters.  Mary was no longer a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.  The Greek word used here is adelphos, which means brother, and definitely not half brother as the RCC would want you to believe.  It is not likely that they were His cousins or Jewish brethren.  The children spoken of as being with Mary were actually her biological children.  The word "mother" is mentioned at the same time (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14).  Simultaneously, Matthew 1:25 does not say that Mary remained a virgin for life, but that she had no sex with her husband until Jesus was born.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who is Simeon or Simon ?

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.