Did Jesus have any sibblings?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

---

@ BENICIO ...

All you have are statements that " could happen " but you dont have any proofs and validations on your senseless points .

If by all means you are to disrespect the Blessed Virgin Mary here because you dont believe in her , then leave it like that . Ayaw pag binastos dong , keep it all to yourself . You dont want to be a part of the statistics here of iSTORYA.net . Trust me on that .

@ WENGIA ....

Asa gi sulti na naay igsuon si Jesus dapit base na kani sila mga anak ni Mary ? Biblically di na siya nimo matubag .

[Labrador2]

NAT ridiculous. in pack, its a fact.
when you read the bible also think when the situation happen, what are the conditions like wala pay TV sauna, kalinganwan nila ay tan-aw lang sa stars.. mao bitaw nga usahay maghisgot ug constellations ang bibliya. Sauna, usa ra ka smile, mag uyog-uyog na dayon ang tent. lol

Pagkagawas ni jesus syempre di na virgin. bungkad na kaayo ug sound ig-ihi Tiwasan pa jud ni jose, solb!
Way kalainan and RC's of today and the RC's way back. Wa gani kasabot sa depensya sa balaud ni moises kontra sa balaud ni jesus samot na sa life nila. Sakto?

Bro what is meant by Mary is still a virigin is not physically but through sins virgin pa cya. If we interpret the bible literary then dili gyud ta maka sabot. Kani nalang na example Mother Mary still a virgin. Besides nag kuyog gud sila ni St. Joseph as husband and wife so sabutabol na. sakto?

[Scott Bernard]

Pagkagawas ni jesus syempre di na virgin. bungkad na kaayo ug sound ig-ihi Tiwasan pa jud ni jose, solb!
Way kalainan and RC's of today and the RC's way back. Wa gani kasabot sa depensya sa balaud ni moises kontra sa balaud ni jesus samot na sa life nila. Sakto?

She remained a Virgin when she bore Jesus Christ, that made her very special. Even if dili ka Christian or Catholic, wala diay ka naka dungog sa saying nga "Virgin Birth"? Christians and Muslims believe in these doctrine.

There are other explanations regarding Jesus' possible siblings. One example is that, they might be Joseph's offspring from previous marriage, or from another woman.

If one might have noticed in the Bible, there was a passage mentioning about Jesus' siblings, BUT none that indicates Mary's children. See the consistencies?

[SioDenz]

There are other explanations regarding Jesus' possible siblings. One example is that, they might be Joseph's offspring from previous marriage, or from another woman.

If one might have noticed in the Bible, there was a passage mentioning about Jesus' siblings, BUT none that indicates Mary's children. See the consistencies?

In old Israel, Ang lalaki maoy magdala sa ngalan sa Clan or Liwat dili ang babaye. Mao sa Bibliya sagad sa imung mabasahan is Kaliwat ni adan, kaliwat ni Abraham, Kaliwat ni David, or Anak ni Lot or anak ni Joseph - So ang imu mabasahan is Anak ngalan jud ni joseph Not ni mary.

[Kenshiro]

Was there a passage in the Bible that Mary was "forever a virgin" or "perpetual virgin"
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Mathew 1:25

An argument that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis.
The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who hold 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.

Jesus brother and sisters regarding them as "half brothers and sisters" have no biblical basis except just for the sake of argument and defending the Goddesshood of Mary.

[SioDenz]

Was there a passage in the Bible that Mary was "forever a virgin" or "perpetual virgin"
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Mathew 1:25

An argument that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis.
The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

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.

Jesus brother and sisters regarding them as "half brothers and sisters" have no biblical basis except just for the sake of argument and defending the Goddesshood of Mary.

Good point.

[KlaytoN]

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.

[benicio]

@ BENICIO ...

All you have are statements that " could happen " but you dont have any proofs and validations on your senseless points .

If by all means you are to disrespect the Blessed Virgin Mary here because you dont believe in her , then leave it like that . Ayaw pag binastos dong , keep it all to yourself . You dont want to be a part of the statistics here of iSTORYA.net . Trust me on that .

@ WENGIA ....

Asa gi sulti na naay igsuon si Jesus dapit base na kani sila mga anak ni Mary ? Biblically di na siya nimo matubag .

hunahunaa ikaw si jose, mabuhi ka ug way s*x s*x, lupig pa nimo ang gisilutan sa ginoo. unya ang mga tawo sauna mabuhi ra ba ug pila sa hundreds ang katuigon. maypagipatay sya sa ginoo kay diri pa lang sa lupa emperno na man para niya. karon hustiya pa ba na para sa ginoo nga ibutang sya ana nga sitwasyon?

Matthew 13:55 (KJV)

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

dili pa ba ni proof?
ayaw ko ug ingna nga kapatid sa religion ang buot pasabot ani nga lines. because if so. ang linya dapat is

isn't this the God's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

To continue:

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

remember capital ang And diri sa 57, which means sumpay ni sa 56. tama?
buot pasabot gi offend si jesus sa mga brothers niya sa religion?

gioffend na si jesus sa iyang mga igsoon becuase dili religious iyang mga igsoon. infact kaaway ni jesus ang iyang mga half brothers and sister nga anak ni jose ug mary.

kinahanglan ug logic ug magbasa sa bibliya bros. di kinahanglan mahimong genius ang tawo para kasabot ana. promisay.

gibasa nako utro, ang Matthew 13:55...58 pamilya ni jesus ang gihisgutan diri ba.

[wire]

...kani murag insakto jud ni, walay kalambigitan ang pagtoo nato kung naa siya brother or sister, basta importante ang mga teachings and good gospels. Personal matters of Jesus Christ has nothing to do para maka-apektar sa life sa usa ka disciples ug nato as christians, that's beyond the belief.

...pero ako nuh, through sa mga practices sa atong Religion, for me priests should have rights to bear children thru meting with someone why? because he is just a human like us that should have freedom. Personal Matters as what I have point to Jesus and to all Catholic Priests that ther personal life are not what could replenish our life and/or washing away from Sin, but our FAITH and MORAL ACHIEVEMENTS - that's it!

...Looy kaaU ang mga Pare sad kay prisoner sa mga kahidlaw, maoy sad nay issue nila nganong manakal ug babae.

...Am I right? ...LOL

Kung naa man gane brothers si Jesus Christ, okay ra, ang importante man ang Faith nato ky God.

[Scott Bernard]

^^

Actually bro, ang mga early Christians married man ang ubang priests, even some disciples/apostles of Christ (St. Peter, etc..) married man.

Later on, pag organize na sa Roman Catholic Church, mao nato nga gebawal na. But unfortunately, thousands, or perhaps, millions of priest failed to follow their sacred vow of chastity.

Pero let us not blame the whole tree just because of some leaves and branches eaten by pests and insects. And more importantly, stick to the topic regarding the possible siblings of Jesus Christ.