Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?


#1

I would like some help from all of you, especially the non-Catholics. Which denominations believe Jesus did not have siblings? When did the first interpretation come out that Jesus had siblings? Church Fathers, etc?

Most denominations I have found teach Jesus had siblings while Catholics maintain that Jesus had non. I have found no writings before the reformation that support siblings of Jesus. Who invented this theory or when did the debate begin?

I know that the main reason it is an issue is to discredit Blessed Mary and the Catholic Church thus proving it in error.

Anyway, any help with sources would be great.

Thanks,


#2

I believe all christian denominations believe Jesus Christ has siblings. I am living proof of that fact.We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. :smiley: God Bless.


#3

[quote=Malachi4U]I would like some help from all of you, especially the non-Catholics. Which denominations believe Jesus did not have siblings? When did the first interpretation come out that Jesus had siblings? Church Fathers, etc?

Most denominations I have found teach Jesus had siblings while Catholics maintain that Jesus had non. I have found no writings before the reformation that support siblings of Jesus. Who invented this theory or when did the debate begin?

I know that the main reason it is an issue is to discredit Blessed Mary and the Catholic Church thus proving it in error.

Anyway, any help with sources would be great.

Thanks,
[/quote]

The Eastern Orthodox and some Anglo-Catholics support the perpetual virginity of Mary. I believe the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity was debated at times in the early church, but sorry: don’t have evidence for this one way or the other. Unlike Spokenword, I beleve some who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary may be Christians: it is a peripheral issue.


#4

I believe St. Jerome’s treatise “On Virginity” was written in response to an attack on the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Karl Keating mentions this in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. He says that when the idea that Mary had other children was first proposed, Jerome thought the idea so preposterous, defamatory and disgusting that he refused to give it notice. Later, he felt compelled to respond. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You coul look it up!”


#5

[quote=SPOKENWORD]I believe all christian denominations believe Jesus Christ has siblings.
[/quote]

Thank you for this insitefull information. I now know that the Catholics are the largest non-Christian group in the world.:wink: So, what do we call 1+ BILLION Catholics now if not Christian?:hmmm:

I am living proof of that fact.

You are living proof, but of what fact…? So, you’re a sibling of Christ or a brother of Christ? Blessed Mary is you’re biological mother too?:eek:

Since you can say Catholics are not Christian and you’re the younger sibling of God, could you also prognosticate my salvation for me so I don’t have to wait for Jesus to do it?:yup: When you walk on water do you only sink halfway up to your waste?

So, since it is now obvious that we don’t use words the same way in our languge - not to mention Arimaic and Greek translations - let us define ‘brother’ and ‘sibling’.

from m-w.com

“Main Entry: broth·er
Pronunciation: 'br&-th]&r
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural brothers also breth·ren m-w.com/images/audio.gif /'breth]-r&n; 'bre-th]&-r&n, -th]&rn/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English *brOthor; *akin to Old High German *bruodor *brother, Latin *frater, *Greek *phratEr *member of the same clan
1 : a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another
2 : one related to another by common ties or interests
3 : a fellow member – used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations
4 : one of a type similar to another
5 a : KINSMAN b : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : SOUL BROTHER
6 a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work b : a member of a men’s religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders <a lay brother>”

“Main Entry: sib·ling
Pronunciation: 'si-bli[ng]
Function: noun
1 **: SIB **2; also : one of two or more individuals having one common parent
2 : one of two or more things related by a common tie or characteristic”

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. :smiley: God Bless

Thank you SPOKENWORD, you have just proven my point, ‘brother’ is just a word used to describe members of a common group and not siblings at all in Scripture!:clapping:

Sorry if I’m too blunt, but I hate Catholic bashing statements that are complete lies.


#6

Whoa, I think y’all were taking SPOKENWORD literally, and I don’t think that’s how it was intended. I think it was more in the spiritual sense of all of us being brothers and sisters in Christ because we are all children of God. Just my two cents…


#7

[quote=Malachi4U]Thank you for this insitefull information. I now know that the Catholics are the largest non-Christian group in the world.:wink: So, what do we call 1+ BILLION Catholics now if not Christian?:hmmm: You are living proof, but of what fact…? So, you’re a sibling of Christ or a brother of Christ? Blessed Mary is you’re biological mother too?:eek:

Since you can say Catholics are not Christian and you’re the younger sibling of God, could you also prognosticate my salvation for me so I don’t have to wait for Jesus to do it?:yup: When you walk on water do you only sink halfway up to your waste?

So, since it is now obvious that we don’t use words the same way in our languge - not to mention Arimaic and Greek translations - let us define ‘brother’ and ‘sibling’.

from m-w.com

“Main Entry: broth·er
Pronunciation: 'br&-th]&r
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural brothers also breth·ren m-w.com/images/audio.gif /'breth]-r&n; 'bre-th]&-r&n, -th]&rn/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English *brOthor; *akin to Old High German *bruodor *brother, Latin *frater, *Greek *phratEr *member of the same clan
1 : a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another
2 : one related to another by common ties or interests
3 : a fellow member – used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations
4 : one of a type similar to another
5 a : KINSMAN b : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : SOUL BROTHER
6 a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work b : a member of a men’s religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders <a lay brother>”

"Main Entry: sib·ling
Pronunciation: 'si-bli[ng]
Function: noun
1 **: SIB **2; also : one of two or more individuals having one common parent
2 : one of two or more things related by a common tie or characteristic"
Thank you SPOKENWORD, you have just proven my point, ‘brother’ is just a word used to describe members of a common group and not siblings at all in Scripture!:clapping:

Sorry if I’m too blunt, but I hate Catholic bashing statements that are complete lies.
[/quote]

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. :frowning: God Bless. Quote; What do you call1&billion catholics that are not christian? I would call them LOST. :smiley:


#8

[quote=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. :frowning: God Bless. Quote; What do you call1&billion catholics that are not christian? I would call them LOST. :smiley:
[/quote]

Sorry if I took your comment out of context like so many do to Scripture. Uhm, maybee the brothers of Jesus is a good example of out of context too? One mans joke is another mans insult.:tsktsk: Oh well, I’m glad neither of us is too upset and we can get back to the issue at hand.

Did this herisey of Christ’s ‘siblings’ begin to be preached in the 1850’s or so? Was it invented to counter the doctrine of the Catholic Church on Blessed Mary? Was it ever taught as fact before the reformation? When did reformers/protestants begin making this up? Did a missguided Catholic invent it but then the Church declare it false? So many questions and so far no documented answers, just opinions.

God bless,

PS, I did get your last joke here:whistle:


#9

[quote=Malachi4U]Sorry if I took your comment out of context like so many do to Scripture. Uhm, maybee the brothers of Jesus is a good example of out of context too? One mans joke is another mans insult.:tsktsk: Oh well, I’m glad neither of us is too upset and we can get back to the issue at hand.

Did this herisey of Christ’s ‘siblings’ begin to be preached in the 1850’s or so? Was it invented to counter the doctrine of the Catholic Church on Blessed Mary? Was it ever taught as fact before the reformation? When did reformers/protestants begin making this up? Did a missguided Catholic invent it but then the Church declare it false? So many questions and so far no documented answers, just opinions.

God bless,

PS, I did get your last joke here:whistle:
[/quote]

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. :smiley: This really has no bearing at all whether she had children or not as far as I am concerned.God Bless.


#10

[quote=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. :smiley: This really has no bearing at all whether she had children or not as far as I am concerned.God Bless.
[/quote]

Question:

If Jesus had other siblings, why then did he give the Blessed Virgin to St.John as he was dying on the cross when under Jewish custom his brothers & sisters would have been responsible for taking care of their mother?.. Unless of course he had no siblings (only step-siblings, since tradition says that Joseph was a much older man & had been married before & widowed, which means they would not have been responsible for Mary).

Your statement concerning marriage is irrelevent, since that has absolutely nothing to do with this event in the life of Christ.

Just FYI though, WE all know that God approves of & blesses marriage, but so far as that goes Jesus himself espoused celibacy and simply said that not everyone could embrace it. My point there is that why is it that there are no celibate Protestant ministers, when it is scriptural , even from the lips of Jesus himself. One reason that I know that I have no calling to the priesthood is that I know that I have no capacity for such a discipline. As w/so many other passages of scripture that are “read around” & ignored.


#11

It is possible that all denominations beleive Jesus had siblings, brothers and sister during his life, even Catholics.

However, and this is an important one - we Catholics do not believe they came from Mary, if you believe He did have siblings, but from Joseph.

Either position is Valid and Catholic.


#12

Malachi, You are named after one of the great prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Your namesake would (and did) speak directly, unlike you. Your question was:

#1 A straw man agruement
#2 (By your response to spoken word) looking for an arguement. Discussion to help each other grow is one thing; causing an arguement is quite another.

How is going out of your way to create an arguement about Mary honoring to her (which you profess to do)?


#13

[quote=tkdnick]Whoa, I think y’all were taking SPOKENWORD literally, and I don’t think that’s how it was intended. I think it was more in the spiritual sense of all of us being brothers and sisters in Christ because we are all children of God. Just my two cents…
[/quote]

I agree. Spokenword had a point. In a sense, we are all “spiritually” brothers in Christ. The negative reactions I believe, are uncalled for.

Gerry :slight_smile:


#14

[quote=Church Militant]Question:

If Jesus had other siblings, why then did he give the Blessed Virgin to St.John as he was dying on the cross when under Jewish custom his brothers & sisters would have been responsible for taking care of their mother?.. Unless of course he had no siblings (only step-siblings, since tradition says that Joseph was a much older man & had been married before & widowed, which means they would not have been responsible for Mary).

Your statement concerning marriage is irrelevent, since that has absolutely nothing to do with this event in the life of Christ.

Just FYI though, WE all know that God approves of & blesses marriage, but so far as that goes Jesus himself espoused celibacy and simply said that not everyone could embrace it. My point there is that why is it that there are no celibate Protestant ministers, when it is scriptural , even from the lips of Jesus himself. One reason that I know that I have no calling to the priesthood is that I know that I have no capacity for such a discipline. As w/so many other passages of scripture that are “read around” & ignored.
[/quote]

It was also a Jewish law that no work be done on the Sabath also and that did not affect Jesus dicission to go against the custom. God can do what he wants. Maybe because His brothers were not there at the cross and Jesus knew they were not capable because of the fear that lived in. Maybe because St. John knew Gods will in his life and Jesus choose St. John to take care of her. This might be one of the question you might want to ask Jesus when you get there? Again no bearing in my Christian walk. FYI. You have it backwards. In Timothy and in Titus it says that bishops were to be married,but thats another subject :confused: . God Bless


#15

[quote=SPOKENWORD] FYI. You have it backwards. In Timothy and in Titus it says that bishops were to be married,but thats another subject :confused: . God Bless
[/quote]

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”

In the culture when this passage was written polygamy was not uncommon and to say that a man should “have one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.

So,“the husband of one wife” refers to the requirement that a bishop have NO MORE than one wife, not that a bishop MUST have one wife. Paul and Jesus both endorsed celibacy. This would make no sense if you’re interpretation were correct.


#16

[quote=SPOKENWORD]It was also a Jewish law that no work be done on the Sabath also and that did not affect Jesus dicission to go against the custom. God can do what he wants. Maybe because His brothers were not there at the cross and Jesus knew they were not capable because of the fear that lived in. Maybe because St. John knew Gods will in his life and Jesus choose St. John to take care of her. This might be one of the question you might want to ask Jesus when you get there? Again no bearing in my Christian walk. FYI. You have it backwards. In Timothy and in Titus it says that bishops were to be married,but thats another subject :confused: . God Bless
[/quote]

You dodge the issue again…but make my point exactly. If Jesus is God then he obeyed the law perfectly…including the 4th commandment. hence because he had no blood siblings he saw to it that Mary was taken care of.

There is some serious problems w/the translations of the Greek because it has no word for cousins which a later passage of the NT identifies them as the children of Mary the wife of Cleopas the Blessed Virgin’s cousin…so those “brothers” weren’t brothers…they were cousins. Historic tradition also says that Joseph was a much older widower who had other children by his first wife…these children would not’ve been responsible for her. Also we know that Jewish siblings did NOT rebuke the first born and these supposedly did so w/Jesus hence they were not his blood relatives since he was the first born of Mary… Have a nice day, please drive through. :smiley:


#17

[quote=Tmaque]“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”

In the culture when this passage was written polygamy was not uncommon and to say that a man should “have one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.

So,“the husband of one wife” refers to the requirement that a bishop have NO MORE than one wife, not that a bishop MUST have one wife. Paul and Jesus both endorsed celibacy. This would make no sense if you’re interpretation were correct.
[/quote]

I believe that this requirement was also (if not solely) referring to the condition that a bishop could not have been divorced or widowed and remarried.

It is also tradition that once a married man became bishop in the early Church, he was to cease normal marital relations with his wife and live with her like “brother and sister”.

It is important to remember that at the beginning of the Church, there were no “cradle Christians”, they were either Jews or Pagan converts. As such, it would have been all but impossible to require celibacy of bishops and/or priests, as the vast majority of eligible men would have been married (as per the custom of the age).


#18

[quote=Church Militant]You dodge the issue again…but make my point exactly. If Jesus is God then he obeyed the law perfectly…including the 4th commandment. hence because he had no blood siblings he saw to it that Mary was taken care of.==============================================.Not according To the Jewish people,for they claimed Jesus broke the Sabath Law. Sorry ,Had to turn around and come through again through the drive through window. :smiley: God Bless. P/s Boy are we full of assumptions. :eek:
[/quote]


#19

[quote=Church Militant]Also we know that Jewish siblings did NOT rebuke the first born and these supposedly did so w/Jesus hence they were not his blood relatives since he was the first born of Mary… Have a nice day, please drive through. :smiley:
[/quote]

I think that this is an important, if often overlooked, argument against the Blessed Mother having other children. In the Semitic culture of the time it was unheard of for younger siblings to even counsel, let alone rebuke the first-born, as the brethren of Jesus did. It is much more likely that they were cousins, part of an extended family which lived close to (perhaps even together with) the Holy Family, which would have been common in Galilee at the time.


#20

[quote=SPOKENWORD] FYI. You have it backwards. In Timothy and in Titus it says that bishops were to be married,but thats another subject :confused: . God Bless
[/quote]

Yeah… well what did you do with these passages specifically espousing celibacy?
Matthew 19:10-12
Matthew 19:29
1 Corinthians 7:8
1 Corinthians 7:32-35
2 Timothy 2:4

This is why we HAVE TO interpret scripture in the context of ALL other passages that deal w/the same topic. Your result is the position of denominations founded by men who have not the faith & courage to even attempt to obey Christ in this matter. Just because we don’t like a passage or don’t completely understand it, or it doesn’t fit our manmade denominational reformed theology is no reason to pretend that it has fallen out of the pages of the Bible. Yet, having BEEN Protestant for over 30 years, I know that this is exactly what happens, which is weird for a bunch of folks who tell me they believe ALL of the Bible & that it self interprets. You’re always confused here…because the truth doesn’t fit what your non-Catholic sources have taught you. I KNOW…I’ve been there. I urge you to swallow your pride, accept the truth, and come home. It wasn’t the Spirit of truth that led you out of the Catholic Church. I KNOW it wasn’t in my own case. :heart: :bible1: :gopray:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.