Did Jesus have siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellopeople
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
comfort1st said:
First: we were asked why scripture apparently tells us He had siblings but the Roman church (but not all others) teaches that He didn’t. Second: I’d trust scripture over the church any day. Human run the churches.
Click to expand...
Not accepting the teaching of the Church is a whole other subject. But I would like to point out that the scholar who posited the whole sola scriptura theory also vociferously defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
If you want to quote Hebrew Scriptures you should quote the Hebrew Scriptures, not a translation of them. Jesus would have been familiar with the interpretation of those scriptures, and so would the writer of the gospel.
Click to expand...
We weren’t talking about interpretations, we were talking about translations. And when the New Testament writers quote Scripture, they quote the LLX. The Masoretic text only dates back to the tenth century.
It was very clear to the Jesuits with whom I did post-grad study, and any examination of the context, and the contrast Jesus made between those whom the crowd described as His brothers and those whom He considered His brothers should make it clear that the word for brothers is being used firstly as siblings and then as those of like mind.
Click to expand...
I’ve observed before that I am extremely skeptical of people who think that from a distance of 18 or 19 centuries they can do a better job of figuring out what an ancient manuscript meant than those who were reading it within a few decades of its being written, and who had access to many more copies and supplemental materials which have since been lost. Even absent the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in purely human terms the ECF, most of whom still spoke the original languages, had a better contextual understanding of the gospels than we do.
The Roman church has also taught, for many centuries, that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute, and there’s no reference to that in scripture. As humans we get things wrong, so we should ask scripture for answers, and not just take what the church teaches as gospel.
Click to expand...
Then why should we accept the scripture? It is the teaching of the church.
and in contrasting what the others were saying with what He was saying Jesus gives as strong an implication as possible without actually saying it, that those described by the crowd as His brothers were, in fact, siblings.
Click to expand...
Circular argument. You believe that adelphi has to be “sons of the same mother” and therefore that the use of the term confirms that the adelphi are other sons of Mary. I don’t believe the word has such a limited meaning and so the use does not prove this to me. Given the fact that we have so many examples of uses of the term that clearly do not have the more limited meaning, along with all the other points made in this thread, I think the traditional position is stronger. Many Reformers, having rejected the authority of the Church, still came to the same conclusion.
The reality is that scripture does not tell us that Mary was a perpetual virgin. That was an early church construct which has been taught, without proper examination, for centuries. The line of reasoning that says she would have been stoned to death for having a sexual relationship with another man whilst her first husband (God/Holy Spirit) was alive is not valid because it would never have been thought of, let alone accepted, in Christ’s lifetime. Please remember also that the church refused for 400 years to apologise to Galileo because of action it took in response to his claim that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. We get things wrong. Some of us take a lot longer to accept that we have been wrong. Sometimes that’s because we think our faith will fall in a heap if some things we’ve been taught for years is actually not valid.
Click to expand...
The reality is that the reason this issue is of any interest at all to Protestants is because they believe it proves that the Church’s teaching authority doesn’t exist. The fact that this conclusion completely undermines the authority of the Scripture on which they claim to rely doesn’t faze them. Apparently they believe that they have been given the charism of infallibility instead, at least on the doctrines they believe are important. Or, in some cases, they’ve gone so far down the road that they don’t think it really matters - even if Jesus isn’t the Son of God, he’s still a great teacher, etc.
 
kepha1 said:
*Luke1:43 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” *
Protestant Response: “Mother of God, what, are you kidding me?”

*Angel Gabriel says - Luke1:28 “…Hail, full of grace the Lord is with you!” *
Protestants say - “What? She’s just another sinful women.”

Elizabeth says - Luke1:42 “…Blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” Catholics say - “Hail, Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed are thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus…”
**Protestants say - **, What? I’ll never “worship” Mary by repeating that prayer.

"Jesus says" - John19:26 “Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
Protestants say - What? Get her out of my house! You aren’t going to find her in my home.

Rev.12:17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war ON THE REST OF HER OFFSPRING, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea…”
Protestants say, That’s Isreal… that’s the Church… thats anything but Mary, she is not MY mother!”

Well, she is Our Mom. How would you like it if I called your mother a bigamist? I have a lot of respect for the many holy Protestants I have met in my lifetime, but I cannot respect such gross theological errors as this.
**
Jesus having bilogical brothers is a doctrine of demons. It leads to Christological errors and is a lie from the pit of hell. My position stands.
Click to expand...
It is my prayer that we can have a dialogue and discuss differences in beliefs without hateful statements.

I would like to say this, we Catholics recognize that Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God, would be a holy and revered person. Do you think God would have chosen her to give birth to his son if she hadn’t been an extradionary person, a holy person. It does not take away from our worship of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it strengthens our belief that this wondrous miracle happened. That Jesus was born unto a virgin for his purpose of saving our souls.

Asking Mary to pray for us - what is objectionable about that? We do not pray to her, we ask her to pray for us. It is our belief that Mary is in heaven and is the Queen of Heaven. Do you not think that she has a special place in heaven at the least?
 
If Mary was just another sinful women, why would God think she was fir to bear Christ and to raise Him?..He chose her and created her sinless for this very purpose

She is the only human link we have to Christ
 
redrosetea said:
If Mary was just another sinful women, why would God think she was fir to bear Christ and to raise Him?..He chose her and created her sinless for this very purpose

She is the only human link we have to Christ
Click to expand...
Is it sinful to have children with your husband?
 
I think that the post I was responding to is actually the strawman. The question of the thread is about if Jesus had siblings…the person started her post with “if Mary was another sinner” which implies it would have been a sin for her to have more kids or it would have somehow made her a sinner.
 
hellopeople said:
I think that the post I was responding to is actually the strawman. The question of the thread is about if Jesus had siblings…the person started her post with “if Mary was another sinner” which implies it would have been a sin for her to have more kids or it would have somehow made her a sinner.
Click to expand...
I was respondent to the nasty cracks in the prior post made by Protestants about Mary calling her just another sinful woman
 
hellopeople said:
What do you mean “approaches seriousness?”
Click to expand...
Being conceived in a sinless state, is not the same a human reproduction that passes on original sin…Christ was sinless from the beginning, because God created Mary to be pure enough to be the Ark of the New Covenant…a fit vessel to bear Christ
 
Have you ever wondered why God chose a virgin to bear his child?
 
To those who believe that Mary had more children, do you know how many children Paul’s mother had, by his own admission?

“I and all the brothers and sisters who are with me greet the churches in Galatia:” - Galatians 1,2

“Let me remind you, brothers and sisters, that the Gospel we preached to you is not a human message,” - Galatians 1,11

“You must know, brothers and sisters, that many times I have made plans to go to you, but till now I have been prevented.” - Romans 1,13

“Brothers and sisters, look and see whom God has called. Few among you can be said to be cultured or wealthy, and few belong to noble families.” - 1 Corinthians 1,26

“May peace and love with faith from God the Father and from Christ Jesus the Lord, be with the brothers and sisters.” - Ephesians 6,23

“I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has served to advance the Gospel.” - Philippians 1,12

“to the saints in Colossae, our faithful brothers and sisters in Christ: Receive grace and peace from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord.” - Colossians 1,2

“Greet the brothers and sisters of Laodicea, and don’t forget Nympha and the church that gathers in her house.” - Colossians 4,15

“We remember, brothers and sisters, the circumstances of your being called.” - 1 Thessalonians 1,4

“Try to come here before the winter. Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers and sisters send you greetings.” - 2 Timothy 4,21

“Brothers, I beg you to take these words of encouragement. For my part, I will add few words.” - Hebrews 13,22

From the above we can say that Paul had siblings everywhere…
 
Sir_Knight said:
You list your religion as “Roman Catholic” but by failing to believe official Church teaching that Mary was ever Virgin as taught in CCC499-500 … 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. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. 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”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

… you are considered a heretic as defined by Church Canon 751 …Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
… and are AUTOMATICLY excommunicated from the Catholic Church as declared in Canon 1364 §1 … “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
… The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does NOT require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.
Click to expand...
 
What gives you the authority to be a judge and jury and excommunicate this man. Is out Vice President of the United States excommunicated because of his belief in abortion? The murder of innocents???
 
Actually Sir Knight neither condemned nor excommunicated.

One of the keys to understanding sin, excommunication and Final Judgment in the Catholic Church is that the person does it to him/her self. The sinning person will accept total responsibility for sin (there can be mitigating circumstances). To expound a bit about “latae sententiae”:

The act itself excommunicates the sinner – no other human has to know about it – but God knows and it will be accounted for.

A well-taught, well-formed-conscience Catholic should be able to discern for him/her self whether or not a grave moral, intentional sin has been done. Some people do not realize, understand or believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholics are required to obey to the teaching.

Excommunication while horrible, doesn’t have to remain so – a sincere Act Of Reconciliation (Confession) can bring the sinning person back to the Catholic Church and in communion. Probably oversimplifying it, but think of it as a very stern warning – the person’s soul is in extreme peril and could be (in the right of mind) a “wake up call” to get things in order. If excommunication is accepted by the sinner and faithfully resolved – it can be a very loving thing to do and help the soul reunite with God.

If everything fails and the sinner willfully refuses God, then Condemnation is reserved for God.
 
Darlene_Jason said:
What gives you the authority to be a judge and jury and excommunicate this man. Is out Vice President of the United States excommunicated because of his belief in abortion? The murder of innocents???
Click to expand...
As the post’er above (* thank you:hug3:*) already explained, I excommunicated nobody. Nor do I have any authority to do so. I merely connected the dots.

The person said that they did not believe a fundamental church teaching. I showed, from official church sources, that failure to accept fundamental Church teaching, automaticly excommunicates a person from the Catholic Church.
 
Darlene, actually I would like to see all the Catholic pro-abortion (they call it pro-choice) members of Congress thrown out of the Church.:highprayer:

Unfortunately, our faith teaches we must love the offender but hate the offense. :knight2::knight1: Darn!

:amen:
 
hellopeople said:
Is it sinful to have children with your husband?
Click to expand...
No, of course not, but Mary being ever virgin would not be a sin either. It is not a sin NOT to have children either is it? Don’t base your opinion on the lifestyles of human beings today, this was a different time in history. Many women took the vow of celibacy.
 
Sir_Knight said:
As the post’er above (* thank you:hug3:*) already explained, I excommunicated nobody. Nor do I have any authority to do so. I merely connected the dots.

The person said that they did not believe a fundamental church teaching. I showed, from official church sources, that failure to accept fundamental Church teaching, automaticly excommunicates a person from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Of course not. You just told people like him (and me) that they are already excommunicated by the fact that they do not believe the teachings of the Catholic Church.
You called him (and others) a heretic followed by the excommunication enacted by the fact of the denial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top