Did Jesus have siblings?

[fisherman_carl]

Council of Ephesus -
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

 

[fisherman_carl]

Mary as Perpetual virgin

Peter of Alexandria -
“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

Origen -
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers -
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius -
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Pope Siricius I -
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine -
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Pope Leo I -
“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

 

[fisherman_carl]

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

 

[Sir_Knight]

In your way of thinking then “behold, I am with you till the end of the world” also does not mean and then there was a change. Only till the end of the world and not after, correct?

Exactly! When Jesus says that He will be with us until the end of the world, it doesn’t mean that He will not be with us after the end of the world.

In like fashion, when it says that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, it does not imply that she wasn’t a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Same use of the word “until” in both passages.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Do you think those who have not even heard about the dogma of perpetual virginity are better Catholics? I know many Catholics who do not know this or other dogmas. They think the Church speaks only about the virginity before the birth of Jesus. Most people simply do not care. They do not reflect upon such subjects. They simply go to church on Sunday, confess and receive communion at Easter and Christmas. That’s all. Are they better Catholics than those who try to think twice in order to understand? … and there are also people, who cannot believe something unbelievable, something they do not understand.

Jesus tells us that to those that much is given, much will be expected in return. We should not look at better understanding of the faith as a burden but as a blessing.

 

[boeck249]

At the risk of starting a new thread . Why do people study the entire Bible in Greek when it was originally written in three different languages. What is this mythical Greek Bible that they speak of. What sections were written in Greek and which were written in different languages.

 

[hellopeople]

Exactly! When Jesus says that He will be with us until the end of the world, it doesn’t mean that He will not be with us after the end of the world.

In like fashion, when it says that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, it does not imply that she wasn’t a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Same use of the word “until” in both passages.

It doesn’t imply she wasn’t a virgin after her birth, but it doesn’t imply that she was either.

 

[hellopeople]

At the risk of starting a new thread . Why do people study the entire Bible in Greek when it was originally written in three different languages. What is this mythical Greek Bible that they speak of. What sections were written in Greek and which were written in different languages.

The whole of the NT was written in Greek. The OT was written in mostly Hebrew with some parts in Aramaic. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the OT into Greek (it came to be around the turn of the common era). The story behind this translation was that it was translated by 70 different translators and they all came up with the same exact thing. If this is true or not is up for debate, but many early Christians believed that this translation was the work of God and thus was just as valid as the Hebrew. So that is why people read the whole Bible in Greek.

 

[StevenFrancis]

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”.146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150

498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark’s Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus’ virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence."153

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.

503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary’s womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ’s humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From “his fullness” as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164

505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”.166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit’s gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary’s virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt”, and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
This is our faith. It is what we believe.
It is about Jesus that we hold these beliefs about Mary.
Jesus is so important that His Mother must be special as well.
She is the ark of the new covenant, and a type of the Christ’s Holy Catholic Church.

The Peace of the Lord be with you,

Steve

 

[inkaneer]

Paul didn’t meet Jesus. He had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Look up Paul’s bio. He started out his adult life persecuting Christions.

So the vision of Jesus was not a meeting? That is not what Paul says in 1Co 9:1. If the vision that Paul had was not the real Jesus then who or what, was it?

 

[comfort1st]

In Hebrew and Aramaic, “brother” could mean “brother”, “cousin”, “kinsmen” or even a “close friend”.

We do something similar in English when we talk about a brotherhood.

Just look at Gen. 11:26-28 where Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) but Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (“adelphos”). He can’t be both. This shows that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Are you suggesting that the LXX translation from the Aramaic and Hebrew should be used as an authentic reference? I hope not.

In Luke 22:32 Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brothers.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brothers” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Just as in the case above where we use (or used) the term brotherhood.

If Jesus had biological brothers, it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend in John 19:26-27.

Why? If Jesus’s siblings were not present, for whatever reason, He would have committed His mother to the care of someone close to Him who was there.

The essential part of the question was that “the [Roman Catholic] church has deemed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.” There is nowhere in scripture to support that stance. The reference in Matthew’s gospel to Christ’s mother and brothers is clearly one of family members.

As to a suggestion that the Holy Spirit would have to have “died” for Mary to have children by another “father” those who knew the family would have assumed the father of all the siblings was one man. The idea that Joseph was not Christ’s father would not, realistically, have been thought of until at least the beginning of His ministry, and probably much later.

 

[NHInsider]

In your way of thinking then “behold, I am with you till the end of the world” also does not mean and then there was a change. Only till the end of the world and not after, correct?

Um, no - that’s exactly the point. The word “until” does not mean “and then the condition will change.”

Jesus will be with us until the end of the world - and after. Agreed? If so, then why not:
Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations until the Nativity - or after.

I’m asserting that the verse cannot be used to prove that they DID have relations after the birth of Jesus.

And feeling like we are going around in a giant, pointless circle.

 

[Pawel_J]

Please site the passage that confirms that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I would like to read it. Thanks!

I cannot show such passages and I will not, because I do not believe she was biologically a perpetual virgin. I only wanted to point out that your argument about various meanings of the Hebrew word ‘brother’ was irrelevant as the language of Gospels was Greek.

 

[inkaneer]

ALL APOSTLES were given the power to bind and loose. MT 18 specifically states “WHAT ANY TWO BIND”, so it shall be bound in Heaven… or something like that. It says NOTHING about acting in communion with Peter. If it does, PLEASE point it out to me.

You are confusing Mt 18:18 with Mt 18:19. Matthew 18:18 says:

“18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

while Mt 18:19 says:

" 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Two different things. In verse 18 Jesus is speaking to the Apostles as a group and that group includes Peter. The 2nd person pronoun ‘you’ used in the English translation is confusing because it can mean both singular or plural. The context is that of Jesus speaking to all of the Apostles so the plural is indicated. Peter has already been given the power to bind and loose individually so how could the Apostles bind something that Peter does not? They can’t. So they [the other Apostles/bishops] must be in communion with Peter in order that they can bind anything. We see this in the Book of Acts at the Council of Jerusalem. It says there was great debate until Peter stood up and spoke. They all agreed with Peter and James formulates the answer which all, including Peter, agree on.

That’s an interesting concept, tho. If someone gives you the keys to bind and loose things here on Earth as it is in Heaven… does that give you the “authority” to hand those keys to other people?? I guess so.

Not really, if I give the keys to my car to my son to drive he can give them to someone else. Those keys represent authority to operate that car. But if I give the keys to my son and tell him that no one else is allowed to drive my car then only my son has authority to drive my car. But I don’t read where Jesus imposed that limitation on Peter. Do you? But this concept of Keys representing authority and binding and loosening is taken from the Old Testament. Read Isaiah 22:22 about the chief steward who was given the keys to the King’s house. The OT kings of Israel had people who they appointed as stewards to help govern. Of these stewards which numbered twelve there was one chosen to be the chief steward. This chief steward was given the keys to the kings house and could act in the name of the King and what would open no one could shut and what he shut no one could open. The parallel between the OT chief steward and Peter, the NT chief steward, could not be more obvious. And note that this was an office. The keys couldbe given to another as was done upon the death of the chief steward. So the authority went with the office and not with the occupant of that office.

Well… I’m honestly tired of people claiming that there’s all these other books written about Jesus, but they don’t count. How would I know for myself?

You won’t. That is why you, just as the Ethiopian eunuch, need the Church to properly explain it. Paul said it was the Church that was “the Pillar and foundation of truth”

At the same time… people are saying, “If people had any problems with these concepts, wouldn’t they have spoken about them? … wouldn’t they have written about them?” That’s the THING! They HAVE! There’s always more and more heretics!! Don’t they count? Why are their opinions always invalid just because you’ve got the keys to turn Heaven into Hell?

No, the heretics don’t count for their teachings have been contradicted by the Church. Jesus said that hell would not prevail over His Church. If the Church taught error then Hell would have prevailed but Jesus said that would never happen. So when it comes down to who are you going to believe, the heretics or the Church the answer is as clear cut as it could be. You go with the Church.

I have no idea whether he saw him or not!! I do know that hallucinogens can give any AND EVERY man “visions”, however. Some that I would say are clearly influenced by the divine. But I’d like to read the other “dozens” of books written about Jesus. That’s all I’m gettin’ at. I don’t need somebody to tell me that only 5% of the books written are absolutely truthful.

If you insist on reinventing the wheel then go ahead but you are wasting your time. The Church has already been there and done that.

 

[inkaneer]

Please site the passage that confirms that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I would like to read it. Thanks!

I will be glad too. You will find that explained in the same passage that you find the concept of the Trinity explained. Of course you know that the Trinity was explained in Greek philosophical terms that were completely foreign to the scriuptures. If one were to go by the scripture passages one could end up like the Unitarians or else believe in three gods. Yet Christians, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, all accept the doctrine of the Trinity. THAT DOCTRINE WAS FORMULATED BY THE CHURCH [and yes, I am yelling at you!!!] Another doctrine that was formulated by the Church and is not contained anywhere in scripture, is the canon of scripture, especially the NT. You see, apparently the Lord forgot to leave us a Table of Contents to tell us just which writings were inspired and were to be included in the New Testament. So He left it up to the Church to decide that. Yet every christian accepts those 27 books of the NT without exception. But scripture does give us a clue to Mary’s perpetual virginity. In Mary’s response to the angel she proclaims that she is “the handmaid of the Lord” The Greek word used there is doule and it means a female slave, a bond maiden. Th idea conveyed is that Mary belongs to or is dedicated to, the Lord. Now scripture says of Joseph that he was a righteous man [some translations say he was a just man]. So this begs the question, would a righteous man even think of messing with something or someone dedicated to the Lord? Joseph, being a righteous Jew, no doubt was well aware of the OT story of those men who touched the OT Arc of the Covenant and what happened to them. Would he thus dare to touch the Arc of the New Covenant?

By the way change your religion in your name box. You are not Orthodox in any way shape or form. My guess is that you are a fundie evangelical. Are you ashamed to state it?

 

[inkaneer]

A “vision” back then would be called a “dream” today. Not even close to a “meeting”. “But rise and stand upon your feet” seems to imply that Paul was laying down on the side of the road. Probably resting or sleeping. As to the sibling issue, I contend that Mary was not a lifelong virgin as per Matt 1:25. There is a reason that Matthew wrote that line. I’m not saying that being or not being a virgin is a good or bad thing. I don’t think that lifelong virginity in any culture is considered a virtue. A tradition is one thing, a fact is another. Jesus telling Mary to go with John does not imply or infer that Jesus did not have any siblings. There is scripture to support the fact that Jesus’s brothers were not believers. References to that issue is mentioned in earlier posts. Also, there is no record of the apostles “handing down” a “tradition” that Jesus had no siblings. The apostles had no way of knowing if Jesus had any siblings. They didn’t meet Jesus until Jesus was in his late 20’s to early thirties.

You don’t read too well do you? Before Paul was told to “. . . rise and stand upon your feet” He says he and his companions had fallen to the ground. He wasn’t sleeping because Paul says it was midday when this happened. A dream does not happen at mid day while one is walking along a road. Read it again in Acts 9:3-9:

“3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.”

The rest of your post has been dealt with before and several times at that. If you want to persist in believing falsehoods then so be it. I won’t waste my time reiterating what has already been documented. My only qustion to you is why are you here? Do you expect to convert Catholics to your false christianity?

 

[Sir_Knight]

It doesn’t imply she wasn’t a virgin after her birth, but it doesn’t imply that she was either.

Exactly my point. That verse can not be used to prove that she wasn’t a virgin while other verses and church tradition (which the bible commands us to adhere to) DOES point to her remaining a virgin.

 

[tml3625]

I thought that the Conversion of Paul in Scripture was well known but I suppose not.

tm1625, Paul was not sleeping along the side of the road and “dreaming” when the Lord spoke to him. He was riding his horse accompanied by other soldiers on the road to Damascus when suddently a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him…(Acts 9:4).

I wasn’t debating Pauls conversion. I said Paul did not meet Jesus. So the vision was actually a voice.

 

[NHInsider]

ALL APOSTLES were given the power to bind and loose. MT 18 specifically states “WHAT ANY TWO BIND”, so it shall be bound in Heaven… or something like that. It says NOTHING about acting in communion with Peter. If it does, PLEASE point it out to me.

First you should go check YOUR references. The verse about the keys is in Matthew 16 and the conversation is exclusively Jesus and Peter. The verse about “what any two ask” is in Matthew 18 and is explicitly between Jesus and the disciples (not even exclusive to the 12).

That’s an interesting concept, tho. If someone gives you the keys to bind and loose things here on Earth as it is in Heaven… does that give you the “authority” to hand those keys to other people?? I guess so.

Well, it certainly did in the Old Testament precedent to which the “keys” metaphor refers. (Isaiah 22)

Well… I’m honestly tired of people claiming that there’s all these other books written about Jesus, but they don’t count. How would I know for myself?

You can’t - that’s why Jesus’ Church, guided by the Holy Spirit as He promised, made an authoritative decision.

At the same time… people are saying, “If people had any problems with these concepts, wouldn’t they have spoken about them? … wouldn’t they have written about them?” That’s the THING! They HAVE! There’s always more and more heretics!! Don’t they count? Why are their opinions always invalid just because you’ve got the keys to turn Heaven into Hell?

Because that’s how Jesus protected the world from tossing and turning on the sea of doubt. (James 1:6)

But I’d like to read the other “dozens” of books written about Jesus. That’s all I’m gettin’ at. I don’t need somebody to tell me that only 5% of the books written are absolutely truthful.

Then you take your chances with your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

And don’t even get started on tradition being handed down thru the generations that “such and such” happened. Because the “bishops of Rome” and other clergy were getting married happily and living with wives until the 7th or 8th Century. And then all of a sudden, it’s “been that way since Jesus and Peter”… Sacred Tradition, where Paul merely recommends it as his own opinion.

You might want to pick on something other than priestly celibacy. The Church does not pretend that a requirement of celibacy is an unchangeable doctrine. It has always been held up as an honorable vocation (which was radical in its day - observant Jews did not consider it an option). But the requirement is a discipline, it was imposed at the beginning of the second millenium, and it’s not universal. The Pope could change it tomorrow.

I must admit… the reason I’d like to see MORE than just these NT books with Pauline influence is because Paul had quite a different theory than James the Just, Brother of Jesus (most likely first cousin). Paul believed in salvation thru faith alone. James knew that if you truly had faith, the works would follow. Faith without works is empty faith.
[snip]
Hence, my interest in His Story as it ACTUALLY happened. Just because Paul feels like Peter and the Apostles deserve more authority doesn’t mean it ACTUALLY happened. History would seem as if the Christian Church (note: I did not say Catholic) was non-authoritarian, excluding God as THE ONLY ONE in charge… not Jesus or Mary or the Apostles or whoever. Early Christians seemed to be more about following the Ten Commandments than the Hail Marys is all I’m gettin’ at.

Works > Faith

Hmm… I wonder what those other non-Pauline influenced authors wrote about…

“History would seem” according to whom? You’ve been given the quotes from Ireneaus and Tertullian and others from the first few centuries of the Christian era, which you disregard. Your ability to independently discern which writings are authentic and accurate Scripture is doubtful, given your apparent inability to even discern difference between spurious and authentic historical documents.

 

[tml3625]

Exactly! When Jesus says that He will be with us until the end of the world, it doesn’t mean that He will not be with us after the end of the world.

In like fashion, when it says that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, it does not imply that she wasn’t a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Same use of the word “until” in both passages.

It doesn’t imply that she was either. Why is everyone so hung up on virginity? I asked earlier why is virginity considered a virtue? No one has answered that question.