Yes, Jesus did have siblings; the New Testament book James was written by James, brother of Jesus. The confusion about the virgin birth is easily cleared up.
When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was indeed a virgin in the modern sense; she had not ‘known’ a man. However, she did not remain a virgin her entire life. Her other children were born the ‘traditional’ way, meaning they were born by the act of Mary and Joseph. Thinking that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is unrealistic; I can’t think of a man who would not have sex with his wife once over many years of marriage.
Hopefully this will clear up any confusion about the siblings of Christ Jesus of Nazareth.
Did Jesus have Sisters?
Several other threads about Scriptural interpretation also touch upon the issue.
BTW, there is now argument that the recent “evidence” for James, brother of JC, is not as certain as originally thought: Article
You silly people. bruiser hath spoken. And even if bruiser’s obviously inherent rightness, knowledge and utter Truth wasn’t enough for you, you can’t argue with all the proof that he packed into the OP.
don’t you people watch Kevin Smith films? my answer comes purely from the move DOGMA, and agrees with Bruisers reply.
first, may i mention that i attended catholic school for 8 years…and STILL have my own personal doubts about the immaculate conception…
IF, indeed, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, that does not mean that she remained a virgin the rest of her life. Although there is no other reference in the bible (as far as i know) to Mary giving birth to any other children…it does not mean that it did not occur.
But think about this…there is also no reference in the bible to Jesus being white…if he lived in the middle east, don’t you think he would have had the physical characteristics of someone living in that area…instead, he is depicted more as a guy from chicago!
The bible is not 100% fact, I’m sure. in fact, i’ve learned recently that many of the stories from the Old Testament were old tales that were told to scare people into believing in God.
I am a Bio Major, and b/c of my learnings for the past 3 years in college, i find many of these “miracles” to be more like fairy tales. I was born and raised catholic, but now I am a practicing Wiccan, b/c of the scientific nature of it.
Think about these few small ideas next time you start reading bible stories to your children
wicca isn’t a scientific religion…but there is a lot of science to it. such as the phases of the moon, different herbs to use, fire, wind, air, earth, water…these are a part of wicca, and they all play a part in science.
no religion is really “scientific”, and i don’t consider wicca a religion. there is no church, no praying, no belief in one almighty ruling being…none of the “traditional” church practices. There is only meditation, and pretty much free will to act as u want. sure, there are certain guide lines to follow…but u dont’ have some guy in a dress tellin u that ur goin to hell if u don’t follow 10 rules that were supposedly written on a rock thousands of years ago. i apologize for offending anyone’s belief’s, but these are mine. nobody has a wrong opinion.
so yeah…wicca isn’t a scientific religion…it’s not even a religion…it’s a part of paganism. but it does deal with science, biology, botany, and astrology.
And I have my own personal doubts about that above statement, since you obviously don’t even know what the phrase means. Furthermore, most people I know who have attended Roman Catholic schools can spell and punctuate standard English.
By the way, despite anti-Christian propaganda, historians have indeed come to the conclusion, hard as it may be to believe, that grown-up people living in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago knew where babies come from.
One might also point out that people who don’t think Jews are “white” are usually members of neo-pagan religions a good deal more sinister than Wicca.
I never said that Jewish people weren’t white…I simply stated, that being from the area that Jesus Christ was supposedly from, I believe that he would have had more of the characteristics of, lets say, a person of Arabic origin. Instead, he is depicted as caucasion. Once again, these statements that I am making are purely OPINION. Do you know what opinions are? Just simply ideas from a persons own personal thoughts. I never said, “Oh, Jesus wasn’t white, he couldn’t have been.” You took what I said way out of context. I only wanted you to think about how The Bible may not be 100% accurate in it’s descriptions. No big deal. Lots of books leave out little details. And if a book is being written by several people, over many years time, then sure, things are bound to get mixed up. Nobodies perfect. Even The Bible stated that Jesus wasn’t perfect. He had a temper to him, if you recall.
So before you get all in a huff about people’s OPINIONS, maybe you should just stop and think about things.
I view things in a biological manner. Not everybody does. However, I do love science and biology, and I would be willing to admit that maybe it has taken a toll on me, because I don’t believe in many of the stories from The Bible. That could be a big disadvantage for me in the end. Conclusively, these are my decisions to follow science more than religion, and I suppose that if they are the wrong decisions, that I will pay later. For now, I am happy and secure with the way I view things.
Um… guys? Mind moving it over to the “Great Debates” forum, or to the “In My Humble Opinion” forum? Since this is adding nothing in the sense of a specific critique of Cecil’s column?
(and I can’t fail to notice that bruiser has posted NOTHING other than that OP – begins to look like a drive-by witnessing.)
wait…now i’m confused…
why would Mary’s conception or birth be considered immaculate? She was conceived and born in the good old natural way. Nothing immaculate about it…
The Immaculate Conception is referring to the way Christ was conceived. It was immaculate, or clean, because there was no fornication. If you’ve ever watched the Charlie Brown Christmas movie, Linus, I believe, goes thru the whole re-enactment.
…“and behold, an angel came to Mary, and told her not to fear, for she was carrying the son of God…” or sumthin along those lines.
Sorry, ‘JRDelirious’, didn’t mean to start WWIII over this whole thing…i’m more than willing to move onto the next discussion.
And this confirms that you assumed they weren’t. It also repeats the assumption which, as John W. Kennedy pointed out, is probably a fallacy. In so far as the term has any meaning at all (and many would consider it mere racial stereotyping), the Jews of first-century Palestine were ‘Caucasian’.
It may come as news to you but only a minority of Dopers would disagree with the idea that the Bible is less than accurate. That it should be analysised historically (which, incidentally, is not the same thing as to do so scientifically or ‘in a biological manner’) is pretty much taken for granted around here. The only substantive point you have made about the actual subject of this thread is that Mary may have been a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus but that she may subsequently have given birth to other children. Despite what you assumed, the Bible does refer to Jesus having ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’, a point which was discussed in some detail in Cecil’s article.
dude, i wasn’t implying anything…and i never said that i was right, either. i was only SUGGESTING a possibility.
and until you can prove anything that is written in the bible, then i will continue to have my reservations about it’s writings. It’s my own personal opinion, MY views, and I’m not trying to push them on anyone.
What i was taught in my 8 years of catholic school, was that Jesus was an only child…conceived without sex, because sex is dirty, and Mary never had sex because she was pure, and never sinned. I was also taught that the references to Christ’s brothers and sisters, were simply to show that his followers were also the children of God, therefore making them siblings to Jesus Christ himself.
these things were literally DRILLED into my head throughout my child, and into adolecence. It was on my own terms, without anyone’s suggestiong, that I came to believe what I do today.
AGAIN…I’m NOT saying that I’m right, I’m NOT pushing my beliefs on anyone…I am only trying to open your minds to ideas that may have not been presented to you before.
And I say you’re obviously a member of the KKK or some such, trolling, and not doing a very good job of it. Here’s a free clue: in order to fake having being taught Roman Catholicism, you have to actually know something about it – not just what you read in Dick and Jane and the Evil Vatican.
And then there’s your persistent denial that Jews are “white”.
Look, the free peoples are a little busy with this Osama Bin Laden jerk, right now, so I’ll make you a deal. Let’s pretend we’ve had the six years of war, destruction, genocide, etc., and skip right to the part where you suck a Luger, OK?
(Moderators – yeah, I know, I know – this isn’t the Barbecue Pit. But everything he’s claiming he was taught in Catholic school is, in point of fact, heretical; he misuses RC terminology in the most ignorant way; and he continues to use racist language. I say he’s a troll, and I say the hell with him.)
Those ideas were all discussed in Cecil’s article, which I would suggest you bother to read before you start making assumptions about what ideas other people may or may not be familiar with.
And C K Dexter Haven is correct that the ‘Immaculate Conception’ refers to the birth of Mary. This is another point which was specifically explained in the original article.
John W. Kennedy - I don’t care how upset you are. You have broken the rules for this forum. If you know about The BBQ Pit, then why not post your hateful message in there?
