Did Jesus have any sibblings?

[raissah]

---

[QUOTE=SPRINGFIELD_XD_40;12895250]This is a repost of my reply . if you really are into the discussion other than for the sake of proving something , take time to read it .

This is an age old question thrown by the PROTESTANTS to the ROMAN CATHOLICS .

To basically answer the question , one should analize first the question both biblically and in commonsense to reconcile both the people who relies on the bible and those who thinks logically .

Try to compare MT. 27:56 and MK 15:40 , it is said thee that the Virgin Mary had a sister named like herself who was the wife of CLopas or Alpheus( variety of the same name ) and who had two sons , James the Less and Joses as claimed as the brothers of Jesus .

Another instance also for commonsense reasoning , when Jesus was 12 years old and was lost in the temple , as claimed or interpreted that he has 4 brothers and 2 sisters , bringing the acocunt to space them evenly in their respective ages . James must be 10 , Joses must be 8 , Judah must be 6 , and Simon must be 4 . Considering on that gaps , the sisters must be 2 and the other must still be unborn . The Virgin Mary went on to trek 70 kilometers in 3 days one way . Is it possible ? NO .

So prior to coming up with questions like these , one should consider also to answer the difficulty of what is realistic . dili lang ang unsay atong interpretation because we cant reconcile or for the sake of discussion lang . So now you guys see a part of the answer that is biblical and what makes sense .

Other than that , this is the belief of the ROMAN CATHOLICS today . That is because the RC's of the yesteryears knew better and these are all inheretance of belief's as what they knew as they were really there . The basic error of non believers to this doctrine is the fact tht they dont have no other source of information except the bible . Mind you , all these interpretations carry different meanings abhoring what carries an advantage to their leverage without any valid foundation .

Great example of these are the conclusions of a one great family of 4 brothers and 2 sisters must be recollected that ADELPHOI which is translated " brethren " may also signify " cousins " .

Gi unsa nimo pagka hibalo na they are COUPLES ? Although I agree with you that S3X is a gift from God that is why it is sacred but you have to establish first that Joseph and Mary are couples . Mary never went to normal if you define it as something out of the ordinary , she did not even die .

@MACHINECULT ...

Unless you can present a source that portrays no bias in the contents of their respective site then that would be reliable .

Naa koy Theory ani why ang mga protestant ra ang mga nipalag ani nga issue sauna, because I think no one would dare question the authorities and teachings of the Roman Catholic church not until Luther came in the picture but I could be wrong.

Anti-Protestantism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I think this is not an issue whether protestante ka or Catholic ka. For me lang ha, if you read the bible and base your faith on the bible, mag wonder jud ka unsay mga meaning and unsay ipasabot anang uban nga mga pulong nga makita sa biblia.

[jadestoner]

sa tanan ako nabasa diri mao ni ako na-learn:

Religion is flawed because man who is part of religion is flawed. The only argument I see here is that one's belief is different from another. Ako mismo I am a Roman Catholic and I do not believe that Jesus has brothers/sisters and that Mary did have other children after Jesus; however I don't say that what you believe is wrong if it doesn't agree/coincide with my beliefs. All religions/beliefs are based off interpretations of a higher being, mine being God the Holy Trinity, and there is bound to be different interpretations since NO MAN THINKS ALIKE. This is the reason why when one who has a certain set of beliefs argues with someone who has a TOTALLY different set of beliefs they will always end up arguing to a point of the argument at times goes sour. This happens because we are convinced that our set of beliefs are correct and utmost supreme in a way that nobody is allowed to step on it like trash. I do hope we could find the truth about our religions, history, origins of our beliefs so that we can have some peace.

Parting shot lang:
I remember how me and my friends are composed of 3 Roman Catholics, 2 Born Again Christians, 1 Muslim, and 1 Baptist; when we are kids we didn't care what religion or beliefs you had, as long as we got together it was ok. We grew up yet till now we don't care what religion we have because we are friends.... correction... brothers. So ka-realize lang ko nga naa man diay ni sa Bible:
"Unless you become like these children, you will never enter the Kingdom of My Father" (sakto bah ako verse? please correct me if I'm wrong).

[SioDenz]

kapoya aning mag sigeg lalis uy, ang usa gatoog maayo na jud kaayo siya morason ug nga sakto siya. ang usa pud nagtoo pud ug mas maayo siya mo rason. wala juy modaog. Ma-virgin o dili, basta dako kog respeto ni Mary kay iya gisubmit iyang kaugalingon sa will sa Ginoo mao na tao si Kristo.

Proving Mary have Children after Jesus does Not Mean Disrespect - Its placing Mary where she should be.

[Kenshiro]

Of course ! How can you establish credibility when the person involved are questionable ?



If you come to that point , again it depends who that person is . Considering I am a Roman Catholic , the Protestants might ask me to eat sh!t because i am a Roman Catholic . A fellow Roman Catholic would never ask me to eat sh!t because he or she knows I am a Roman Catholic .

Getting the drift now ? Dont settle for senseless arguments bai . Like I said , that question was an age old presentation of the Protestants to the Catholics that was timelessly answered also . The only thing that would matter here is that they wont agree with it because iof they do then it defeats the purpose of Martin Luther why they are PROTESTING . Makes sense ?

Of course ! How can you establish credibility when the person involved are questionable ?

One thing that amazed me is that you don't attack the information and facts but the person the provider of information.
This will lead then to senseless personal attacks rather than constructive critical examination of the information given.

So if I were to choose my stand I would rather question the information rather than the person.

Well mao pud na inyo bay more on who said it.

But we are more on what is said if its logical and biblical.

If someone tells you eat sh!t it would be someone who promotes blind authoritative obedience.

Martin Luther never came up with a protest for the sake of protest it was through a careful study of the scriptures on how the Papacy has corrupted and clearly violated the Biblical doctrines.

What if the pope tells you to eat shit then it doesn't matter what it is right? Since you don't question on what but who told you. This is clearly blind obedience.
How do you know if the person is credible? Because someone told you that someone is credible? Then how do you know if that someone that told someone is credible because that someone is told by someone who is credible. It goes on and on.
It doesn't make any sense but its blind obedience in its purest form. There is no credibility but secretivity.
That is why most of you says the Bible is not reliable because you yourself distorted its doctrine and its meaning.

We take our credibility directly from God through the pure meaning of the Bible.

There is no reason why the RC have twisted, distorted and corrupted the word of God except to be the entity that fits this verse.
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Daniel 7:25

And drunk with the murder of the protestants:
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev 17:6

[ketllac]

Isa ni sa mga evidence that Catholic tradition and the Scriptures doesn't always agree with each other. Daghan mga teachings ang Vatican thru Tradition that's directly inconsistent with the Scripture. Therefore kamo mga katoliko dili ninyo ma blame kung ngano ang mga protestante they adhere to sola scirptura.

create a thread about holy tradition and the bible and mag exchange tag idea.

[SioDenz]

Lisod ang diskosyun if dili mu agree sa same nga basihan. Ang uban mu base sa Bibliya ra jud way lain. Ang uban Bibliya ug Church traditions. So unless magkasinabot if unsa jud ang basehan, murag way kapa ingnan. Pero ok ra ghapon at least nakapadayag, basta naa lay respito sa tagsa tagsa ka pagtuo

[ketllac]

Lisod ang diskosyun if dili mu agree sa same nga basihan. Ang uban mu base sa Bibliya ra jud way lain. Ang uban Bibliya ug Church traditions. So unless magkasinabot if unsa jud ang basehan, murag way kapa ingnan. Pero ok ra ghapon at least nakapadayag, basta naa lay respito sa tagsa tagsa ka pagtuo

good respeto gyud ang pinaka importante..

OT: BTW kini out of topic naman pero ang holy tradition predates biblical tradition..wala nag pasabot nga nag sunod sa holy tradition is unbiblical. in fact ang foundation sa bible is holy tradition sa wala pay bible nga na imbento..simple logic lang gud naa bay nag una nga written account before sa actual nga event? laktod pagka istorya ang tradition sa simbahan is biblical in fact ang bible nag ingon nga "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" sige murag nilayo na ang topic..

FYI ang karaang reformers like Calvin, Luther, Huldrych Zwingli nitoo man before about anang perpetual virginity before ni separate ang protestant..unsa may nakaon nga ni-utro man sa bag ong panahon?

[SioDenz]

good respeto gyud ang pinaka importante..

OT: BTW kini out of topic naman pero ang holy tradition predates biblical tradition..wala nag pasabot nga nag sunod sa holy tradition is unbiblical. in fact ang foundation sa bible is holy tradition sa wala pay bible nga na imbento..simple logic lang gud naa bay nag una nga written account before sa actual nga event? laktod pagka istorya ang tradition sa simbahan is biblical in fact ang bible nag ingon nga "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" sige murag nilayo na ang topic..

Kinsay gasulti ani? ug para kinsa? unsa sad nga tradition ang gipasabot?

FYI ang karaang reformers like Calvin, Luther, Huldrych Zwingli nitoo man before about anang perpetual virginity before ni separate ang protestant..unsa may nakaon nga ni-utro man sa bag ong panahon?

Aws, tuo jud kay kana si Luther lang daan Monk man nah. If para nimu nakakita ka sa kamatuoran ma utro jud ka. Di man sad pwedi nakakita ka nga di mao ang imung gina practice nya pdayun lan gihapon ka.

[ketllac]

@siodenz

Kinsay gasulti ani? ug para kinsa? unsa sad nga tradition ang gipasabot?

I would love to exchange ideas with you but it should be in a separate thread..

Aws, tuo jud kay kana si Luther lang daan Monk man nah. If para nimu nakakita ka sa kamatuoran ma utro jud ka. Di man sad pwedi nakakita ka nga di mao ang imung gina practice nya pdayun lan gihapon ka.

if mo follow ko sa imo logic ron...si Luther wala sad nakakita sa kamatuoran apil ang mga kristiano ug kaniadto nga iyahang gi protestahan kay lagi ni tuo sa perpetual virginity of Mary? sa ato pa ang pag evolve ug pag utro sa doctrine nagpasabot nga mao ang kamatuoran?

[SioDenz]

if mo follow ko sa imo logic ron...si Luther wala sad nakakita sa kamatuoran apil ang mga kristiano ug kaniadto nga iyahang gi protestahan kay lagi ni tuo sa perpetual virginity of Mary? sa ato pa ang pag evolve ug pag utro sa doctrine nagpasabot nga mao ang kamatuoran?

Imu ingun is "FYI ang karaang reformers like Calvin, Luther, Huldrych Zwingli nitoo man before about anang perpetual virginity before ni separate ang protestant..unsa may nakaon nga ni-utro man sa bag ong panahon?"

Unsa man say logic ning imung gisulti? Ang pag utro sa Pagtuo/practice way Kalambigitan sa kinatibuk-ang TRUTH, its a Personal choice and interpretation.

What I want to say is, If Para nimu nakasugat ka sa kamatuoran which is dili pariha sa imung practice karun - Mausab or Imu jud usbon imung practice. Its your personal perspective and it doesnt translate sa Real TRUTH kay ang Real Truth mao na atung gipangita run mao na atung gi istoryahan run.

So if naa mubali nga Pari doesnt Mean nga sayop siya. OR Since mao nay imung gituhuan sa una doesnt mean nga mao na jud toy sakto.