Did Jesus have Brothers & Sisters?

Starman3000m

Starman3000m

New Member
Info that most people are unaware of or are taught to believe otherwise:

Question: "Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?"

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

…

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Complete article at:
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?
 
Robin

Robin

New Member
Starman3000m said:
Info that most people are unaware of or are taught to believe otherwise:

Question: "Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?"

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.


…

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

Complete article at:
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?
Click to expand...


I thought one of his sisters names were miriam and the yougest bernice?
children
Jesus
Salome
Miriam
James
Joses
Simon
Judas
Bernice
 
Starman3000m

Starman3000m

New Member
Nucklesack said:
We already know he had a brother James who did not believe him to be the Messiah
Click to expand...

At first - James became a believer/follower later.

James was a major leader for the growth of a Church, but the beliefs of that Church are different than the beliefs you hold.

The Nazarene Jew belief (Different than the Church of Nazaraene) believe that Jesus was a man (not clear if he was a prophet) and after Jesus/Yeshu died, "Nazarenes" after Jesus' hometown of Nazareth, became his followers.

Jesus' brother James, was head of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem until he was also executed by the Romans. The Nazarenes observed Jewish laws. The Romans killed many Nazarenes, for being observant Jews, during the Jewish revolt. Jews believe Jesus was a founder of a religious movement, or more specifically of the sect of the Nazarenes within Judaism.

Jesus/Yeshu own brother didnt believe he was the Messiah

According to Nazarene Jews, Jesus was a Jewish man who was executed and later given divine status by the Christian church, there is a distinction.

It wasnt until the Church decided having Jesus's brother not believe in him, made their "Story" a little iffy, that then changed the story about him.
Click to expand...

The initial group of first-century believers were all Jews who worshipped the Risen Lord and Saviour as the prophecied Messiah in Jewish praise - different than today's Gentiles. If you ever have a chance to attend a Messianic-Jewish gathering, the praise and worship is greater, more intense and more spiritual than many Protestant/Catholic and other Christian-led churches are today.


Christianity is in reality a Jewish sect in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Gentile believers are grafted into the faith through God's Promise of Salvation through Yeshua HaMashiach.
 
Last edited:
L

libby

New Member
baydoll said:
Oh I've read it many, many times, darling. Too bad none of it is true. :howdy:
Click to expand...


On this forum, I've repeatedly said that while I disagree with BAC's, atheists, Mormons, etc, I can understand how reasonable people on a search for truth can come to various conclusions about what that Truth is. Because of the many moons I have spent with Starman and IT, I am not above a few very frustrated exhortations, but I have never felt any compulsion to condescend to such witty remarks as the above in the course of a dialogue, especially towards those with whom a forum rapport has just begun.
Do you want to imitate the style of Star and IT, or do you want to learn about why (in my case) Catholics do what they do?
Is there any part of you that can admit that some of what Catholics on this board have shared does have Biblical basis, even if you don't ultimately agree with said interpretation?
 
baydoll

baydoll

New Member
libby said:
On this forum, I've repeatedly said that while I disagree with BAC's, atheists, Mormons, etc, I can understand how reasonable people on a search for truth can come to various conclusions about what that Truth is. Because of the many moons I have spent with Starman and IT, I am not above a few very frustrated exhortations, but I have never felt any compulsion to condescend to such witty remarks as the above in the course of a dialogue, especially towards those with whom a forum rapport has just begun.
Do you want to imitate the style of Star and IT, or do you want to learn about why (in my case) Catholics do what they do?
Click to expand...


Hon, I already know 'why' Catholics do what they do and really do not care to be quite frank with you. It's whether what they 'do' (or believe in) is actually true or not is what really matters. That's what's known as Apologetics, dear one. Not trying to figure out WHY Catholics do what they do but is it TRUE or not. That is the question.

Is there any part of you that can admit that some of what Catholics on this board have shared does have Biblical basis, even if you don't ultimately agree with said interpretation
Click to expand...

And how did YOU come to the conclusions that your Church is the One True One without resorting to using YOUR 'interpretations' libby? Being as that is a no-no in your Church.
 
L

libby

New Member
baydoll said:
Hon, I already know 'why' Catholics do what they do and really do not care to be quite frank with you. It's whether what they 'do' (or believe in) is actually true or not is what really matters. That's what's known as Apologetics, dear one. Not trying to figure out WHY Catholics do what they do but is it TRUE or not. That is the question.



And how did YOU come to the conclusions that your Church is the One True One without resorting to using YOUR 'interpretations' libby? Being as that is a no-no in your Church.
Click to expand...

So the answer is "no", you are not trying to dialogue with fellow Christians. Just as IT and Star, you are assuming for yourself the authority you rejct. I

If you already know the why's, then why are you asking questions about the Assumption, etc? Why don't you take a turn answering questions for a change? Where, in the Bible, is the Bible? Where is the Table of Contents?
 
baydoll

baydoll

New Member
libby said:
So the answer is "no", you are not trying to dialogue with fellow Christians. If you already know the why's, then why are you asking questions about the Assumption, etc? Why don't you take a turn answering questions for a change? Where, in the Bible, is the Bible? Where is the Table of Contents?
Click to expand...

Libby, do you know what Apologetics is? It is not so much as 'dialoguing' but debating other people who believe differently than you. Right now the topic is Mary's so-called 'Assumption'. You quickly put in your 2 cents and then wildly jump thousands of miles away to the authority of Scripture which has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary's so-called Asumption. You wish to acknowledge the authority of Scripture when it comes to what your Church believes in, say the TRINITY which IS in Scripture (and obviously so), but YET you (and your Church) reject it when it comes to something unbiblical as Mary's so-called Assumption that is NOT in Scripture.

So where's the consistency in that?


Just as IT and Star, you are assuming for yourself the authority you rejct.
Click to expand...

You reject God?
 
L

libby

New Member
baydoll said:
Libby, do you know what Apologetics is? It is not so much as 'dialoguing' but debating other people who believe differently than you. Right now the topic is Mary's so-called 'Assumption'. You quickly put in your 2 cents and then wildly jump thousands of miles away to the authority of Scripture which has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary's so-called Asumption. You wish to acknowledge the authority of Scripture when it comes to what your Church believes in, say the TRINITY which IS in Scripture (and obviously so), but YET you (and your Church) reject it when it comes to something unbiblical as Mary's so-called Assumption that is NOT in Scripture.

So where's the consistency in that?
Click to expand...



Your position is that Scripture is the only authority. Well, how do you know that? I mean, Scripture doesn't tell us what belongs in Scripture. You told me I was relying on something extra-Biblical to come up with the Assumption. Well, you're relying on something extra-Biblical to come up with the Bible. Do you get that?
Jesus established a church; He never said book or Bible. That Church is what determined which books were inspired and belonged in the Bible. Now, can you tell us by what authority you know which books are inspired?
Click to expand...
 
Starman3000m

Starman3000m

New Member
libby said:
Your position is that Scripture is the only authority. Well, how do you know that? I mean, Scripture doesn't tell us what belongs in Scripture. You told me I was relying on something extra-Biblical to come up with the Assumption. Well, you're relying on something extra-Biblical to come up with the Bible. Do you get that?
Jesus established a church; He never said book or Bible. That Church is what determined which books were inspired and belonged in the Bible. Now, can you tell us by what authority you know which books are inspired?
Click to expand...

libby, when Jesus established "The Church" it is what comprises all believers who believe and accept Faith in who He was/is. He was not speaking of a literal, made of brick and mortar-type church building and man's organized religion.

The Church that Jesus established is the Spiritual Body of believers throughout the world who have turned to Him as Lord and Saviour and whose Atoning Blood was shed for their sins.

The RCC/Vatican rule was not established by Jesus, nor founded by the Apostle Peter at all; it was founded by the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who usurped the growing popularity of the Early Church and moved the "headquarters" from Jerusalem to Rome. Fact is: God's Headquarters are still Jerusalem and in due time, after the rule of antichrist, Jesus will return as Messiah and establish God's Millennial Kingdom from Jerusalem - not Rome.
 
Last edited:
L

libby

New Member
Starman3000m said:
libby, when Jesus established "The Church" it is what comprises all believers who believe and accept Faith in who He was/is. He was not speaking of a literal, made of brick and mortar-type church building and man's organized religion.

The Church that Jesus established is the Spiritual Body of believers throughout the world who have turned to Him as Lord and Saviour and whose Atoning Blood was shed for their sins.

The RCC/Vatican rule was not established by Jesus, nor founded by the Apostle Peter at all; it was founded by the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who usurped the growing popularity of the Early Church and moved the "headquarters" from Jerusalem to Rome. Fact is: God's Headquarters are still Jerusalem and in due time, after the rule of antichrist, Jesus will return as Messiah and establish God's Millennial Kingdom from Jerusalem - not Rome.
Click to expand...

As I posted in another thread, there are myriad examples of heirarchical authority in the NT, modelling the way in which the church functions today.
Your invisible church is your interpretation. I have enough respect for my brothers in the Lord to say that I understand how people come to this, I do not question or challenge your love for Jesus Christ, I do not accuse you of worshipping the Bible, or the tree from which it was made.

I look forward to the day you all offer me that same courtesy.
 
Starman3000m

Starman3000m

New Member
libby said:
As I posted in another thread, there are myriad examples of heirarchical authority in the NT, modelling the way in which the church functions today.
Your invisible church is your interpretation. I have enough respect for my brothers in the Lord to say that I understand how people come to this, I do not question or challenge your love for Jesus Christ, I do not accuse you of worshipping the Bible, or the tree from which it was made.

I look forward to the day you all offer me that same courtesy.
Click to expand...

All good and well, my dear libby, and - believe it or not - I love you as a friend. The situation in question is where a believer places his/her tribute and directed prayers. The New Testament Jesus is to be our exclusive High Priest and Mediator to God with attention and tribute/honor given to no one else.

It is as a friend (believe it or not) that I say it is wrong to pay tribute or honor to any member of the clergy by kneeling before them, kissing their hand and/or doing the same to assorted statues of dead people - which totally constitutes idolatry which is quite evident in the RCC denomination.
 
L

libby

New Member
Starman3000m said:
All good and well, my dear libby, and - believe it or not - I love you as a friend. The situation in question is where a believer places his/her tribute and directed prayers. The New Testament Jesus is to be our exclusive High Priest and Mediator to God with attention and tribute/honor given to no one else.

It is as a friend (believe it or not) that I say it is wrong to pay tribute or honor to any member of the clergy by kneeling before them, kissing their hand and/or doing the same to assorted statues of dead people - which totally constitutes idolatry which is quite evident in the RCC denomination.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt your sincerity, I doubt your humility.
 
baydoll

baydoll

New Member
libby said:
Your position is that Scripture is the only authority. Well, how do you know that? I mean, Scripture doesn't tell us what belongs in Scripture. You told me I was relying on something extra-Biblical to come up with the Assumption. Well, you're relying on something extra-Biblical to come up with the Bible. Do you get that?
Click to expand...

Libby, I believe and trust TOTALLY without doubt in God Who is my sole 'Authority. I believe He is more than able to give us His Truth in the form of His Word that He's placed in His Holy Book the Bible and with the help of the Holy Spirit, He used trustworthy men to safeguard His Book. If you do not believe in this, then that's your problem, Hon, not mine. I hate to be in your shoes on the day you stand before the Lord and explain to Him why you did not believe He was capable of keeping His Word.

I do not need to know the whys and hows of chapters in the Bible ect. Believing in GOD and Who He is and all His attributes is far more important than why or how chapters got divided or what Scripture belongs in Scripture. GOD placed those Scripture in Scripture. He is more than able to do so, dear, being that He is God of this Universe and everything in it. Certainly He is capable of being the Author of His Book and making sure it gets into our hands so that we may come to know Him and know His Truths.

Again, your Church likes to pick and choose WHAT is Scripture (the stuff that agrees with it) but then totally disregards/ignores/explain away Scriptures that disagrees with it. And there are MANY.

Again consistency is not your's or your Church's strongest point, dear.


Do you believe that God is the Almighty One who created this universe and everything in it down to it's tiniest detail? If you do, then why do you not think (or believe or trust in) Him not capable of keeping His Word and making sure His Word gets out there so that we who want to know His Truth is able to do so?

If not then you are not trusting in God. Do YOU get that?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top