Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[joe370]

=jrtrent;10155721]My gut feeling is yes, Joseph would have felt fine fulfilling all his duties as a husband, including the conjugal act. It has been mentioned a couple of times that there is something somehow unclean or defiling about the natural way of conceiving and bearing children, but I don’t see how that’s possible in the context of the marriage relationship, which is blessed by God.

Yep, I can sure relate to that! I thought I had found the one, true church in Mormonism back in my teens, but as the years passed, too many things just didn’t hold together.

So it was not important to you (back then) to find the one church founded by Jesus in the 1st century (Pentecost) as opposed to a mere man, namely Joseph Smith (or me LOL) in the 19th century, and I ask with the utmost respect - always? It seems that you believe that Jesus’ one church, in terms of structure and doctrinal unity is no longer identifiable in a world with so many many diverse and autonomous churches. That’s cool. I get it…

I agree that that would make sense, but at this point, I just don’t see a one, true church anywhere.

OK.

The Bible makes some things very clear, but others (yes, even baptism and the eucharist) are not so well defined. The logical conclusion I find now is that if it was God’s desire that everyone now worship in exactly the same way, the Bible would provide more explicit detail on how to do that.

Confused. The bible is not what Jesus left the world with to discern truth, as per the holy bible - correct? If it were then Jesus would have to guide each and every person… each individual would be moved by the holy spirit to properly discern truth but that is not scriptural at all.

I had referenced Romans 14 in a previous post as one example of how different expressions of Christian practice were not condemned by God.

And I agree. I am only talking about essential doctrinal truth imparted by Jesus…

Paul could certainly have simply told everyone what the correct attitude and actions were concerning the eating of meats and the observance of days, but he did not.

I agree. Of course that was not on a par with essential doctrinal truth e.g. the holy Eucharist.

Instead, what we seem to learn is, to paraphrase Barnes’ Notes, that whatever different beliefs and courses of action were taken regarding these issues, those involved did it conscientiously and with a desire to glorify God; instead of providing correction, Paul indicates that what is needed is kindness and charity and acceptance of different ways of doing things.

Concerning the eating of meats and the observance of days…? Agreed. The holy Eucharist however, he was quite adamant about discerning the Body of Christ.

Commenting on the words “for God hath received him” in verse 3, Barnes Notes says, “Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognised by God as his, and where there is this evidence, we should neither despise nor judge them.”

Catholic catechism agrees.

When I read Calvin or Pieper or John Gill or J. C. Ryle, or any of a number of others, I am struck by their scholarship, their honesty, and their love of God.

Cool. I’ll check them out. You ever read Scott Hahn? He was instrumental in my conversion, among others. He seems pretty smart and genuinely honest.

Yes, they each come to different conclusions about many things after reading the same scriptures, but I’m convinced each is doing his best to honour God, and whatever “tradition” a person decides to follow, let us respect each person’s attempt to live for God the best way they know how.

Amen brother.

 

[PRmerger]

The ECFs had some really bizarre notions in this regard…like Jesus being born through Mary’s ear so that her hymen remained intact…gotta love those traditions.

Just to be clear: there are many uneducated folks here who confuse traditions and customs, with Sacred Tradition.

The above example of an ECF tradition is, of course, quite different from what Catholics understand to be the Word of God: Sacred Tradition.

 

[joe370]

Just to be clear: there are many uneducated folks here who confuse traditions and customs, with Sacred Tradition.

The above example of an ECF tradition is, of course, quite different from what Catholics understand to be the Word of God: Sacred Tradition.

Good point PR. There were certain ECFs (and even men after that period) that held to contrary beliefs (e.g. Thomas Aquinas in his Compendium of Theology on actual sin vs original sin, regarding Mary) that were just that - their personal beliefs, as opposed to Sacred Tradition, which is part of the deposit of faith handed down from the apostolic age.

Of course he always deferred to the authority of the CC anyway, and eventually, in the latter part of his life, admitted it: “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault and incurred neither Original nor mental nor venial sin.”

 

[rellanor]

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers

 

[PRmerger]

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother.

What word would they have used for a *Christian *brother? Like, my “brother in Christ” that is so often used in Christian churches today?

 

[cheezey]

Let’s not forget the women folk…
There were ‘sisters’, too, though I don’t think named. Does the translation of words theory apply here as well? Please be patient with me. Remember I know nuthin’ compared to you fine debaters!!!

Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
57 And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

thanks

:doh2:

 

[Porknpie]

some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins.

Correction, all Roman Catholics believe…

Who else believes besides those Romans?



Those Eastern Orthodox Catholics

Those Oriental Orthodox Catholics



Those Evangelical Catholic reformers…

Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

U. Zwingli

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

As I always say,when the Catholics and reformers agree on something and you do not, you have to wonder about the sand in which your house was built on.

 

[PRmerger]

And there were ‘sisters’ though I don’t think named. Does the translation of words theory apply here as well? Please be patient with me. Remember I know nuthin’ compared to you fine debaters!!!

thanks

:doh2:

In addition, if we take the view of some non-Catholics that has been proposed here regarding “brothers” = “blood brothers”, then are we to understand that there were 120 of them, coming from the womb of Mama Mary??

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the** brothers** (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).–Acts 1:15

Egads! I think that we truly ought to venerate any woman whose womb could nurture and nourish that many brothers of Christ!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers

And now the entire thread begins again…

 

[cheezey]

And now the entire thread begins again…

oh please… I can’t even quickly find how the number rose to 120…

 

[Randy_Carson]

and you could read the gospel of John and note that Jesus’ mother is not given the name of Mary…but, by using other scriptures we can figure it out and don’t need to believe that the author of that gospel was speaking a another mother of our Lord who had a different name than Mary

Similarly, by using other scriptures, we can figure out that James was not a uterine-brother of Jesus.

1. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

1. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

Paul’s use of the word “brother” in his letter to the Galatians does not prove your argument.

FWIW, it is thought that Joseph and Alphaeus/Clophas were brothers and that they each married a woman named Mary. One became the mother of Our Lord, and “the other Mary” was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas - the cousins of Jesus.

Hope this helps.

:tiphat:

 

[Porknpie]

And now the entire thread begins again…

Oh my gosh…ground hog day revisited…and it bring back bad memories of programming in fortran. It was called a “do loop”…repeating an action again and again.

youtube.com/watch?v=kzWJ5Hw6BNs

 

[cheezey]

In addition, if we take the view of some non-Catholics that has been proposed here regarding “brothers” = “blood brothers”, then are we to understand that there were 120 of them, coming from the womb of Mama Mary??

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers**** (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).–Acts 1:15

Egads! I think that we truly ought to venerate any woman whose womb could nurture and nourish that many brothers of Christ!

without stating where I am on the matter…
couldn’t the word ‘brothers’ have been used in the scriptures for ‘fellow men’, fellow men of Christ’ as well as (possible)siblings of Christ? "in the midst of the ‘brothers…’’ could in this instance mean fellow men of Christ. In Matthew 13, as siblings??

 

[PRmerger]

without stating where I am on the matter…
couldn’t the word ‘brothers’ have been used in the scriptures for ‘fellow men’, fellow men of Christ’ as well as (possible)siblings of Christ? "in the midst of the ‘brothers…’’ could in this instance mean fellow men of Christ. In Matthew 13, as siblings??

Absolutely.

So how do we know which meaning is being attached to the word “brother”?

Through the lens of the Faith which gave us these Scriptures.

 

[cheezey]

Absolutely.

So how do we know which meaning is being attached to the word “brother”?

Through the lens of the Faith which gave us these Scriptures.

and for some, as it pertains to each particular use in the scriptures…

 

[joe370]

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers

Hey rellanor, I agree with your line reasoning, at least from the protestant perspective. With that said, we both agree that there is no way for sola scriptura advocates to know with certainty one way or the other - right or wrong? Of course sola scriptura can speculate and feel comfortable with their assertions…

One thing that always bothered me when I used to embrace what you believe: If the blessed Mary actually had male children other than Jesus, according to their cultural traditions, it would have been a major insult to the supposed blood brothers of Jesus, for Jesus to entrust Mary’s care to the apostle John who had zero blood relation. Agree a little?

What about the step-brother scenario? Also, why would the Greek Septuagint translators call Lot, Abraham’s “adelphos” (brother) even though Lot was Abraham’s nephew? Gen. 13:8

 

[PRmerger]

and for some, as it pertains to each particular use in the scriptures…

I don’t know what this means.

 

[cheezey]

One thing that always bothered me when I used to embrace what you believe: If the blessed Mary actually had male children other than Jesus, according to their cultural traditions, it would have been a major insult to the supposed blood brothers of Jesus, for Jesus to entrust Mary’s care to the apostle John who had zero blood relation. Agree a little?

What about the step-brother scenario?

~

Once I realized how much older Joseph had to have been, I thought of stepbrothers.
Once I realized “Hey why would Jesus entrust Mary to John if there were other biological ties.?” I thought, no siblings.

Both make sense and support what I have come to know. BUT!!! Historically, can you tell me why stepbrothers would not have taken care of Mary, after her only Son’s death? What would have been the standard in that day?

Thanks.

that’s what I said!!

 

[cheezey]

I don’t know what this means.

that the one word in question - brother - could have been used in various ways in the scriptures. Theoretically; not saying it is or isn’t…

 

[PRmerger]

that the one word in question - brother - is used in various ways in the scriptures.

Indeed.

And how do we understand, 2000 years later, what meaning to apply to the words in Scripture?

Through the authority of Sacred Tradition.

Without it we are left with tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of a particular word/phrase/verse/paragraph is the correct one.