Did Jesus have siblings?

[grndslm]

If, as you say, “The essence of Protestantism, as I understand it, is that there is freedom of thought.” then ask yourself if this was what Jesus taught or is this what the scriptures teach? If this is the essence of protestantism then why do protestants say a Hindu can not be saved? Isn’t the freedomn of thought extend to others who don’t believe in protestantism. And why do protestants point fingers at Catholics? Doesn’t “freedom of thought” extend to everyone, including Catholics? The protestant revolt was not about freedom of thought unless those thoughts were the thoughts of a parental abuse victim whose physical and psychological abuse were instrumental in Luther’s denying any authority that he, himself, could not control. Hence Luther would say what the Bible said, not the church. And the whole of protestantism followed him.

You’re trying to fit Protestants in a bubble that does not exist. It’d be extremely tough to find a Protestant that believes the same thing as the next. OTOH, it’d be extremely tough to find a Catholic that believes something different from the next Catholic.

Of course freedom of thoughts is extended to everyone, including Catholics… but by the very nature of your absolutely authoritative religion, you would not be Catholic at the point where you start thinking for yourself.

As for your comments on Mary and Joseph the reason we maintain that Mary was and remained a perpetual virgin is the same reason given by Jerome to Helvidius:

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (*Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary *19 [A.D. 383])

The funny thing about all this is that Catholics say things like, “It has been passed down from the Apostles thru oral tradition.” Catholics use that to say that early priests were celibate, totally ignoring the married popes up until the 7th or 8th Century. So… if what was passed to Helvidius is the same thing that was passed to you and me… are we not making interpretations from the same documents? And, if you really want to get into it… we have MORE documents than Helvidius had. Did he read the Protoevangelium of James?

The bottom line to all this is this, Nowhere does scripture say that Mary had other children. Nowhere does scripture say that this person or that person was a child of Mary. The only person descibed by scripture as a child of Mary is Jesus. And finally at no time in the history of christianity did anyone ever claim to be a brother or sister of Jesus nor did anyone ever claim to be descended from such a brother or sister. That is huge in a world where cities boasted of having this or that Apostle’s or saints remains. Yet not a one ever claimed to have a brother or sister of Jesus. Look at the furor over the alleged ossuary box which fraudulenty claimed to be that of James. If you are going to be a name dropper then there is no other name to drop that even comes close to the name of Jesus. Yet down through 2,000 years there is not even a whimper.

And likewise… nowhere in scripture does it say that Mary didn’t have other children. Nowhere does scripture say that Jesus was an only child. If it did… we wouldn’t be jumping to conclusions based on interpretations of claims that do not exist.

Also… how can you prove that no one in 2,000 years has ever claimed to have been a brother or sister of Jesus. You only know what the powers that be want you to know.

 

[grndslm]

1. As I stated quite clearly, I don’t claim to know whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin or not. My point is that there is no reason why believing Christians can’t believe that she had normal marital relations with her husband. I actually find that positive rather than negative. Besides, just about every translation of Matt 1:25 (KJV, NIV, NEB, RSV, Living Bible, Phillips, etc.) strongly suggests that they did live as a normal husband and wife after Jesus was born.

There is a reason why Catholics can’t believe that she had normal marital relations with her husband. That reason is “the infallible man”, known as the Pope. You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says.

 

[hellopeople]

I think that my position shows obedience to the instructions that Jesus give to His followers …[bibledrb]Matthew 10:14-15[/bibledrb]… on how we are to treat those who reject the faith.

Isn’t this a bit out of context? Jesus sends his disciples out to preach the good word, telling them ONLY to preach to Jews and not to preach to gentiles or Samaritans…and he says anyone who does not accept you (meaning anyone that the 12 preach to right now) and you take this to me anyone ever in the history of Christianity to not accept the message of Jesus? That is absurd. What an interpretation!

 

[hellopeople]

There is a reason why Catholics can’t believe that she had normal marital relations with her husband. That reason is “the infallible man”, known as the Pope. You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says.

It (Edited) isn’t backed up by the bible or church history IMO.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Isn’t this a bit out of context? Jesus sends his disciples out to preach the good word, telling them ONLY to preach to Jews and not to preach to gentiles or Samaritans…and he says anyone who does not accept you (meaning anyone that the 12 preach to right now) and you take this to me anyone ever in the history of Christianity to not accept the message of Jesus? That is absurd. What an interpretation!

What Jesus said to the twelve applies to their successors. According to your logic, only the original Apostles would have the authority to forgive sins because Jesus gave than authority only to them. According to your logic, the Church is not assured of infallibility because when Jesus said that whoever hears them and accepts them, accepts Jesus. THAT is absurd and completely goes against the Catholic concept of Apostalic succession of authority

The interpretation is clear and it applies to those that reject the faith whether Jew or gentile. After all why would an all-just God hold the Jews who reject the faith to a harsher standard than Gentiles who reject the faith?

 

[hellopeople]

What Jesus said to the twelve applies to their successors. According to your logic, only the original Apostles would have the authority to forgive sins because Jesus gave than authority only to them. **According to your logic, the Church is not assured of infallibility because when Jesus said that whoever hears them and accepts them, accepts Jesus. **THAT is absurd and completely goes against the Catholic concept of Apostalic succession of authority

The interpretation is clear and it applies to those that reject the faith whether Jew or gentile. After all why would an all-just God hold the Jews who reject the faith to a harsher standard than Gentiles who reject the faith?

You understand my logic then.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If the comments made by Jesus applied only to the Apostles and not to their successors, then NOBODY had any authority to assemble the bible in the late fourth century. If nobody had the authority, then there is no way to know for sure that the books in the bible really belong in the bible and the books that were excluded should have been excluded.

After all, why include the Gospel of Mark who wasn’t even a disciple of Jesus and exclude the Gospel of Thomas who was an actual Apostle?

Using your “logic”, we have no assurance of what any of Christ’s teachings might have been. Maybe all of the books that were included should have been excluded and all of the books that were excluded should have been included. If that were the case, we would have a completely different understanding of Christ’s message.

Your view of the faith points to confusion and doubt because, as I said, there is no assurance that what is in the bible is what Jesus actually taught. My view of the faith removes any doubt that the bible is indeed the infallible Word of God because it was assembled by the Authority of the Church which was given to the Apostles and passed on to their successors.

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer

Just a couple of thoghts.

1. As I stated quite clearly, I don’t claim to know whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin or not. My point is that there is no reason why believing Christians can’t believe that she had normal marital relations with her husband. I actually find that positive rather than negative. Besides, just about every translation of Matt 1:25 (KJV, NIV, NEB, RSV, Living Bible, Phillips, etc.) strongly suggests that they did live as a normal husband and wife after Jesus was born.

You know your reasoning would be on firmer ground if there was evidence to back it up. Unfortunately there isn’t. As it is your reasoning is nothing more than mere speculation. That is because you refuse to accept the evidence presented by the opposing side. A little bias on your part perhaps??? There is ample evidence to support the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact there is much more evidence and a higher magnitude of evidence to support her perpetual Virginity than to support the opposing position. Now I will gladly change my position on this issue if you can provide the evidentiary proof that Mary did have other children. Show me who, other than Jesus, claimed to be Mary’s child. Show me who claims to be and has proof that they descended from any childof Mary. That’s all you have to do.

1. My own view of Protestantism is that mainline Protestants certainly are open to differences of opinion among Christians. That’s obvious when I discuss religion with my Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopalian and other friends. They have different interpretations among themselves without rancor. There is no ‘party line’ that they feel compelled to follow. Some, for example, would believe in the virgin birth, some would doubt it, some would disbelieve in it. Some would believe in hell, some would doubt it, some would disbelieve it it. Etc. It’s that freedom to think independently that I find attractive. They don’t worship the Bible but worship God. True, various sola scriptura Protestants tend to be more dogmatic than that. I also find that mainline Protestants, while disagreeing with Catholicism on various matters, are inclined to be very ecumenical, willing and even eager to worship together with Catholics and all other Christians. A main hurdle is that Catholics will not permit them to receive communion and will not receive communion from Protestant clergy. Benedict XVI has even said that Protestant communion is invalid and that they don’t really have churches but ‘ecclesial’ organizations. Oh, and as for Luther and other Reformers, they are no more infallible than any one else. Like St. Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, and dozens of others, they were brilliant but human - thus sometimes mistaken.

Well that maybe your view of protestantism but it is completely wrong. Luther was a great proponent of private interpretation of the scriptures as long as it was his interpretation. Those who disagreed with Luther soon were subjects of his wrath. The reason that you can sit down and discuss religion with protestants of other denominationsis because none of you possess any authority to say the other is wrong. This is why in only 500 years protestantism has split into myriads of denominations. And no we will not receive communion in a protestant denomination because protestants do not share the same belief as we do. The eucharist is not a “symbol”. It is what Jesus said it is, His Body and Blood. To accept protestant communion is to falsely portray a united belief that does not exist. We would be hypocrits if we did so. The reason we don’t want protestants to receive communion in a Catholic Church is because of what Paul said about receiving the body and blood of Jesus unworthily. Those who do eat and drink damanation. Those are strong words coming from Paul and he says nothing about the Eucharist being a “symbol”. So protestan communion is not the Eucharist and therefore is not valid. As for protestant denominations not being churches the pope is correct. The church is one that Jesus established. He established only one church not 40,000 churches. None of the protestant denominations have the necessary 2,000 year history to be that church established by Jesus. In fact, none even claim it. So you see we don’t agree on alot. But we do agree on one thing, Luther was not infallible. And that puts your sola scriptura on very shakey ground. By the way Catholics have never claimed that St. Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas or any other of the Church Fathers were infallible. But what these early church writers do is they testif to the beliefs of the church in their time. And what do we find? We find that what they claim was believed in their time is held as belief by the Catholic Church today. There are no early church protestant Church Fathers because there are no early church protestants.

 

[inkaneer]

1. As to Hinduism. Let me share one expererience from 1997. I spent awhile in India with a Hindu family. We had some interesting discussions and obviously did not agree on theological matters. But when it came to the spirit of Christ, loving God and one’s neighbor, that family was exemplar. My stay with them convinced me that if they weren’t granted eternal life I could be in serious trouble. They certainly reflected the teachings of Jesus. I believe Jesus once said: “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” They did what Jesus commanded, except for embracing certain Christian doctrines. Personally, I don’t believe that doctrines are the core of the Christian message. Jesus, when asked how to enter eternal life clearly answered: love God and love your neighbor. My Hindu friends did that. They had a great love of God as they understood God. Despite the polytheism usually attributed to Hinduism, they were well-educated and saw behind all their gods the one Lord of history - much as Catholics see God beyond all the saints that they may pray to. In that sense, I found that Hinduism and Catholicism were amazingly similar. If no one comes unto the Father but through Christ, and Christ is (as I believe) the essence of mercy and understanding and love, that Hindu family will win the victory over death.

Wonderful. Now convince your fellow protestants of that.

I suspect that some posters will see much as this as heresy.  I have no regrets or anxiety about that. The God I worship honors independent thinking, broad acceptance of other expressions of faith, a kind and generous spirit, and efforts to reconcile people of different religions. God objects to narrow-mindedness, harsh judgmentalism, and arrogant dogmatism.

Independant thinking, huh? I guess that is why Jesus said:

"9 `BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ " [Matthew 15:9]

That doesn’t sound like Jesus giving a ringing endorsement to “independant thinking” to me. You got a lot to think about.

 

[hellopeople]

If the comments made by Jesus applied only to the Apostles and not to their successors, then NOBODY had any authority to assemble the bible in the late fourth century. If nobody had the authority, then there is no way to know for sure that the books in the bible really belong in the bible and the books that were excluded should have been excluded.

**OK, I can agree with this…though the books that did go into the bible seemed most logical. **

After all, why include the Gospel of Mark who wasn’t even a disciple of Jesus and exclude the Gospel of Thomas who was an actual Apostle?

Probably because the Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas the apostle and was likely written in the second century…just like the gospel of mary and other gnostic gospels.

Using your “logic”, we have no assurance of what any of Christ’s teachings might have been. Maybe all of the books that were included should have been excluded and all of the books that were excluded should have been included. If that were the case, we would have a completely different understanding of Christ’s message.

Yeah, that sounds about right. This could be possible, but seems unlikely. They included the books that were most used in the churches (at least by augustine’s account)

Your view of the faith points to confusion and doubt because, as I said, there is no assurance that what is in the bible is what Jesus actually taught. My view of the faith removes any doubt that the bible is indeed the infallible Word of God because it was assembled by the Authority of the Church which was given to the Apostles and passed on to their successors.

Just because your faith is “certain” doesn’t mean that it is any more right or valid than mine. You can’t prove your faith, just as I can’t prove mine.

My responses in bold.

 

[hellopeople]

Independant thinking, huh? I guess that is why Jesus said:

"9 `BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ " [Matthew 15:9]

That doesn’t sound like Jesus giving a ringing endorsement to “independant thinking” to me. You got a lot to think about.

I don’t know, from reading the whole passage of Matthew 15, it seems you are the one that has a lot to think about.

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’** 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father[c]’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

It seems like Jesus is urging us to be be moral and prioritize the rules and doctrines…I think acceptance and kindness are at the top of this list.**

 

[guanophore]

It is only in the last 150 years or so with the rise of the fundie evangelicals, who previously were known as “the know nothings” that the idea that Mary had other children became popular. But for the first 18 centuries no christian held that opinion.

It has become popular, certainly, but they do no more than reincarnate the heresies of Helvidius, against whom Jerome writes:

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

 

[guanophore]

  I presume others have cited this (I have not read all the postings), but I find Matthew 1:24-25 of particular interest. My translations reads: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he was called the name Jesus."

 Elsewhere in scripture "knew her" meant had sexual relations (e. g., Gen. 4:1). That is one of the special joys and privileges of marriage and I see less problem with that than if they never consummated their marriage. That would be viewed as wrong today, sufficient cause for a quick annulment. What sort of example is that for the rest of us?

Since Joseph was legally married to her, why did he “know her not”? What possible reason could there be for not consummating the marriage?

 

[guanophore]

I think that my position shows obedience to the instructions that Jesus give to His followers …[bibledrb]Matthew 10:14-15[/bibledrb]… on how we are to treat those who reject the faith.

Those instructions were given to the disciples before they left on a missionary journey. When was the last time you went on one of those?

 

[hellopeople]

Those instructions were given to the disciples before they left on a missionary journey. When was the last time you went on one of those?

Right…just because jesus said something to his 12 disciples doesn’t mean that it is meant to apply to every Christian everywhere.

 

[guanophore]

But the essence of Protestantism, as I understand it, is that there is freedom of thought.

No, the essence of Protestantism is rebellion against authority. The Reformers rejected the Apostolic Succession, finding it corrupt. They replaced that authority with themselves, and then exercised the freedom of thought to create their own doctrine. The departure from the Apostolic Faith is what is the essence of Protesatantism.

While holding to right doctrine does not constrict one’s freedom of thought, it does affect ones obedience. One can think that the Apostolic message committed to the Church is wrong, and prefer one’s own ideas to it, but until one decides to act upon one’s rebellion, one is not yet in a steate of disobedience.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just because your faith is “certain” doesn’t mean that it is any more right or valid than mine. You can’t prove your faith, just as I can’t prove mine.

But with your approach, there is room for doubt. Just because somethings MIGHT be unlikely, doesn’t mean that it can’t be possible and your salvation is not assured because any verse that assures you of salvation MIGHT not have been the true Word of God.

With my approach, there is no doubt because with my approach, the bible was assembled by the authority of the Son of God. All of the teachings of the Church are assured to be correct by authority of the Son of God.

 

[guanophore]

There is a reason why Catholics can’t believe that she had normal marital relations with her husband. That reason is “the infallible man”, known as the Pope. You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says.

This type of calumny and misinformation is neither productive or welcome here on CAF. If you are just here to spread lies about our faith, you have come to the wrong place.

 

[Sir_Knight]

TO “grndslm” and “hellopeople”:
I refer you to Acts 1:15-26 where we see that the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by inkaneer
Independant thinking, huh? I guess that is why Jesus said:

"9 `BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ " [Matthew 15:9]

That doesn’t sound like Jesus giving a ringing endorsement to “independant thinking” to me. You got a lot to think about.

I don’t know, from reading the whole passage of Matthew 15, it seems you are the one that has a lot to think about.

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’** 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father[c]’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

It seems like Jesus is urging us to be be moral and prioritize the rules and doctrines…I think acceptance and kindness are at the top of this list.**

Not really. Jesus is talking about those who perverted the Mosaic law [the Commandment to honor thy parents ] to line their own pockets. Today that can apply to any number of protestant “preachers”. It also applies to those who claim to protestantism in general which claims to have “reformed” the church. That is something that was not necessary since Jesus said He would remain with His Church and the Holy Spirit would guide it. With Jesus on board and with the Holy Spirit at the wheel how could the church veer off course that it would need “reforming”? Do you claim that the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job? Protestant worship is in vain because it perverts the worship that Jesus Himself instituted at the last Supper when He commanded the Apostles to “do this as my memorial” or “do this in rememberance of me.” For 2,000 years that has been the liturgical worship of the Catholic Church. We call it the Divine Liturgy or the Mass.