Did Jesus have siblings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellopeople
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger
Code:
Gosh, I guess I had forgotten that the Church had respected both Protestants and Catholics. I seem to remember, from history, that the Albigenians, Waldenians, Lollards, Hussites and other pre-Reformation Protestants were extreminated as much as possible - though a few Waldensians escaped into the Italian Alps. Then, after the Reformation, the Pope put out a document making it okay to kill Luther because he was an evil heretic. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that heretics were more dangerous than murderers and should be executed. Hm! It seems to me that there was a mass slaughter of French Protestants when they had gathered for a wedding - the massacre of St. Batholomew, after which the Pope ordered a special Te Deim in thanksgiving to God.  

 Was I misinformed?

 Oh, and Protestants too often 'returned the favor'. While "Bloody Mary" killed off Protestants, Elizabeth II came along killed off Catholics. I guess both groups have little reason to feel proud and plenty of reason to repent of past sins.
 
PRmerger
Code:
Gosh, I guess I had forgotten that the Church had respected both Protestants and Catholics. I seem to remember, from history, that the Albigenians, Waldenians, Lollards, Hussites and other pre-Reformation Protestants were extreminated as much as possible - though a few Waldensians escaped into the Italian Alps. Then, after the Reformation, the Pope put out a document making it okay to kill Luther because he was an evil heretic. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that heretics were more dangerous than murderers and should be executed. Hm! It seems to me that there was a mass slaughter of French Protestants when they had gathered for a wedding - the massacre of St. Batholomew, after which the Pope ordered a special Te Deim in thanksgiving to God.  

 Was I misinformed?

 Oh, and Protestants too often 'returned the favor'. While "Bloody Mary" killed off Protestants, Elizabeth II came along killed off Catholics. I guess both groups have little reason to feel proud and plenty of reason to repent of past sins.
Sarcasm, huh?

What was that someone wrote about that? Sarcasm is the protest of those who are weak

Could you show me a Church document that says that any one of those people are not all children of God and merit our respect?
 
Being a Catholic, I have no interest in an* Episcopal* point of view.
The Protestants have usurped our word, “episcopal”. In the example provided, the term referred to the *Catholic church’s governance. As in “of, relating to, or involving church government by bishops.” * Catholic bishops.
 
PRmerger
Code:
 Sorry, if I sounded sarcastic. I just was shocked to read that respect for Protestants was something that emerged out of the teachings of the Catholic Church. My own study of history indicates that 'heretics' were slaughtered by the church to keep others from being influenced and going to hell. That's what St. Thomas Aquinas said. He said 'heretics' were worse than murderers! Now, you may interpret this as respect but I somehow interpret it differently. As for something in print, check out Aquinas' writings. I did my undergraduate thesis on Aquinas. A brilliant man, of course, and a prolific scholar and writer, but he demonstrated very little respect for those who disagreed with Mother Church. And he lived in an age of superstition, before a decent telescope and the discovery of the microscope. I forgive him but don't attempt to cover over his colossal bigotry and substantive errors.

  Again, the past historic records of neither Catholics or Protestants are all that wonderful, and it does annoy me when someone tries to whitewash the sordid chapters in their history. We ought to admit the horrors of those times and move on toward amity and reconciliation. We can and should do better. 

  I must have said already that I was raised with a foot in each camp - paternal line French-Canadian Catholic, maternal line Puritan Protestant. I'm what some would call an ecumaniac, interested in making religion a bridge rather than a barrier. I'm troubled when I see one side assailing the other. Christians should behave better, and with a greater sense of repentance and humility. Christ would want that. Religious fanaticism has been at the root of some many injustices over the centuries.

 God bless everybody - no exceptions!
 
Paul called himself an apostle. Obviously he didn’t just think that the original 12 were apostles. So it is quite easy to think that James the brother of Jesus is different than James the apostles.
No, Paul is very specific. He goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Then in Galatians 1:19 he says:

"But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. " [Gal 1:19]

He specifically says that this James he met was (A) an Apostle.and (B) the brother of Jesus. And that is totally impossible if you insist they were siblings.

You know the early church people were no dummies. They knew more than protestants want to give them credit for. Of course protestants don’t like to talk about early church history. After all it is not their history. Their history starts in the 16th century.
 
PRmerger
Code:
Gosh, I guess I had forgotten that the Church had respected both Protestants and Catholics. I seem to remember, from history, that the Albigenians, Waldenians, Lollards, Hussites and other pre-Reformation Protestants were extreminated as much as possible - though a few Waldensians escaped into the Italian Alps. Then, after the Reformation, the Pope put out a document making it okay to kill Luther because he was an evil heretic. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that heretics were more dangerous than murderers and should be executed. Hm! It seems to me that there was a mass slaughter of French Protestants when they had gathered for a wedding - the massacre of St. Batholomew, after which the Pope ordered a special Te Deim in thanksgiving to God.  

 Was I misinformed?

 Oh, and Protestants too often 'returned the favor'. While "Bloody Mary" killed off Protestants, Elizabeth II came along killed off Catholics. I guess both groups have little reason to feel proud and plenty of reason to repent of past sins.
Seems to me that you expect heaven here on earth. There is no sin in heaven and the church on earth is a church of sinners. No one has ever claimed otherwise. So what’s your point???
 
Just for the record, I find that millions of mainline Protestants would agree in large measure with the Unitarians when it comes to treasuring freedom of belief. Bible study groups in mainline churches permit people to interpret scriptural passages in many different ways, without approved" or “heretical” ways.
Really? I am somewhat incredulous, Roy.

Your church permits people to interpret Scriptural passages which claim Whites are superior? Your church permits people to interpret Scriptural passages which claim women are inferior? Your church permits people to interpret Scriptural passages which support polygamy?
 
PRmerger
Code:
 Sorry, if I sounded sarcastic. I just was shocked to read that respect for Protestants was something that emerged out of the teachings of the Catholic Church. My own study of history indicates that 'heretics' were slaughtered by the church to keep others from being influenced and going to hell. That's what St. Thomas Aquinas said. He said 'heretics' were worse than murderers! Now, you may interpret this as respect but I somehow interpret it differently. As for something in print, check out Aquinas' writings. I did my undergraduate thesis on Aquinas. A brilliant man, of course, and a prolific scholar and writer, but he demonstrated very little respect for those who disagreed with Mother Church. And he lived in an age of superstition, before a decent telescope and the discovery of the microscope. I forgive him but don't attempt to cover over his colossal bigotry and substantive errors.
Did you ever ask yourself why Thomas Aquinas said heretics were worse than murderers? I don’t think you did. Jesus said something similar. Jesus said:

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” [Mt 10:28]

Luke records Jesus saying something similar:

"“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.” [Luke 12:4]

Murderers kill only the body but heretics kill the soul. Ole Tommy Aquinas wasn’t such a bad guy after all.
PRmerger Again, the past historic records of neither Catholics or Protestants are all that wonderful, and it does annoy me when someone tries to whitewash the sordid chapters in their history. We ought to admit the horrors of those times and move on toward amity and reconciliation. We can and should do better.
I fail to see what history has to do with the essential religious question of whether Jesus established a church and which one is it? What men do or have done for whatever reason should have no bearing on one’s decision as to which belief system to join. One should search for the Truth and join himself to it. That’s all.
 
My own study of history indicates that ‘heretics’ were slaughtered by the church to keep others from being influenced and going to hell. That’s what St. Thomas Aquinas said. He said ‘heretics’ were worse than murderers! Now, you may interpret this as respect but I somehow interpret it differently
sigh! There it is again. Sarcasm, the protest of the weak.
As for something in print, check out Aquinas’ writings
I believe I asked for a Church document–not just “something in print”. Perhaps you could try www.papalencyclicals.net.

Could you show me a Church document that says that any one of those people are not all children of God and merit our respect? Is there something that said that they are children of Satan?

I just did a cursory search and could not find anything that makes your claim.

Instead, I found this:

“All people are **children of God **and have been equally entrusted to your care and safe-keeping.”

And this: "But it is fully evangelizing in manifesting the fact that for man the Creator is not an anonymous and remote power; He is the Father: “…that we should be called** children of God; **and so we are.” And thus we are one another’s brothers and sisters in God. "

And this: “Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this mutual understanding and friendship, in this sacred communion, we must also begin to work together to build the common future of the human race”

And this: "Thus, the Apostles, in the early days of the Church, among other precepts for a devout life taught and laid down the doctrine which more than once occurs in the Epistles of St. Paul addressed to those newly baptized: “For you are all the** children of God **by faith, in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew, nor Greek; there is neither bond, nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

[SIGN]All from papalencyclicals.net!!![/SIGN]
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy5
Just for the record, I find that millions of mainline Protestants would agree in large measure with the Unitarians when it comes to treasuring freedom of belief. Bible study groups in mainline churches permit people to interpret scriptural passages in many different ways, without approved" or “heretical” ways.
Really? I am somewhat incredulous, Roy.

Your church permits people to interpret Scriptural passages which claim Whites are superior? Your church permits people to interpret Scriptural passages which claim women are inferior? Your church permits people to interpret Scriptural passages which support polygamy?
You are forgetting something. His “church” has no authority. For them to call someone a heretic is the proverbial ‘kettle calling the pot black’. Here is how it works in protestantism:

QUESTION: What do you get when you have three protestants with two different interpretations?

ANSWER: You get another denomination.
 
**Unitarians amd Mainline Protestants **

Just for the record, I find that millions of mainline Protestants would agree in large measure with the Unitarians when it comes to treasuring freedom of belief. Bible study groups in mainline churches permit people to interpret scriptural passages in many different ways, without approved" or “heretical” ways.
Code:
 How do most mainline Protestants differ from Unitarians? Let me suggest 4-5 likely ways, depending upon the individual congregation.

 1. Most mainline Protestants focus considerably attention upon Jesus, while many Unitarian churches lift up other religious leaders (Buddha, etc) as of equal importance.

 2. Most mainline Protestant churches have a very diverse membership, ranging from conservatives theologically speaking to very liberal, almost identifical with Unitarianism.

 3. Worship in most mainline Protestant churches will include traditional hymns such as "What a Friend We Have in Jesus" or "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" which are sung by people who may not always agree with them literally. Mainline Protestants have a big appetite for symbolic traditions. Some will even recite creeds that they may not believe in - heretical Episcopalians, for example - because they are valued as part of tradition. Like the English who know that the monarchy is archaic but support it anyway because of its emotional pull. Unitarians are more literalistic, and hymns are re-written so that they can be sung by freethinkers without qualms. 

 4. Traditional mainline church still value baptism and communion, while most Unitarian churches place far less (if any) emphasis on those two Protestant sacraments/ordinances.

  5. Unitarians as a whole are a more intellectual crowd, less diverse than mainline Protestants, and often social activists, taking very liberal positions on such issues as abortion and gay rights. You will rarely find an uneducated person among Unitarians, and there is very little demographic 'cross section' among them. Few African-Americans, for example. This is not stated necessarily as a criticism, but as an observation. Unitarians are inclined to be much less tolerant of traditional Christianity than mainline Protestants. If a Unitarian argued for the Trinity he might be viewed as a 'heretic'. Among most mainline Protestants there is a wider spectrum of beliefs and the tolerance that goes along with it. There would also be more diversity in patterns of worship.  Mainline Protestants are more likely to be more divided on social issues - abortion, gay issues, etc.- and they range from very low to quite high when it comes to liturgy.

  Most evangelical Protestants, like traditionalist Catholics, would look upon Unitarians as non-Christians in that they do not believe that Christ was God incarnate, that he died for our sins and that he rose from the dead.

 But they're all children of God and merit our respect.
Excellent summation, Roy…!
 
sigh! There it is again. Sarcasm, the protest of the weak.

I believe I asked for a Church document–not just “something in print”. Perhaps you could try www.papalencyclicals.net.

Could you show me a Church document that says that any one of those people are not all children of God and merit our respect? Is there something that said that they are children of Satan?

I just did a cursory search and could not find anything that makes your claim.

Instead, I found this:

“All people are **children of God **and have been equally entrusted to your care and safe-keeping.”

And this: "But it is fully evangelizing in manifesting the fact that for man the Creator is not an anonymous and remote power; He is the Father: “…that we should be called** children of God; **and so we are.” And thus we are one another’s brothers and sisters in God. "

And this: “Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this mutual understanding and friendship, in this sacred communion, we must also begin to work together to build the common future of the human race”

And this: "Thus, the Apostles, in the early days of the Church, among other precepts for a devout life taught and laid down the doctrine which more than once occurs in the Epistles of St. Paul addressed to those newly baptized: “For you are all the** children of God **by faith, in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew, nor Greek; there is neither bond, nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

[SIGN]All from papalencyclicals.net!!![/SIGN]
If I may…

… would you concede, as Roy has on the Protestant side, that Catholics were responsible for inappropriate acts?

And if so, wouldn’t that somehow trump a written document? Actions speaking louder than words…?
 
PRmerger - in particular

To begin with, I have mentioned several times that I am the product of a mixed heritage - Catholic paternal line, Protestant maternal line. One of my ancestral cousins was named the very first Archbishop of Canada roughly 200 years ago. Etc. My main interest is in religious reconciliation, which is my constant theme here on CAF. I feel the need to present this viewpoint, hoping that some readers will find it reasonable and even appealing. We should put an end to this silly religious bickering and respect the views of others within the Christian community. I hope to break through the hard-nosed monomania and obsession that some seem to exhibit.
Code:
To treat Protestantism as a monolith, of course, as PRmerger appears to do, is ridiculous. Protestantism is very diverse, true, and that can be seen as a weakness or a strength. Judge for yourself. However, I don't know of any Protestant sect that has approved of polygamy, although the Old Testament apparently did. How many wives did that wise old Solomon have? Was it 600 wives and 1000 concubines, or the other way around? David had a few. Jacob had two wives and two concubines. Etc. But the Mormons, for the record, are not Protestants. They have a totally different prophet, a different scripture, etc. They are about as Protestant as the Muslims are. Ask them. They will tell you that they are not Protestants. In fact, they are organized much like the Catholic Church with a president who receives divine revelations, somewhat like the Pope. Their Vatican is in Salt Lake City. Centralized and authoritarian. And mainstream Mormonism rejected polygamy back when Utah wanted to join the union.

 As far as the inferiority of African--Americans, the main leaders in the Civil Rights Movement were Protestant ministers beginning with Dr. King.  One of the men killed (Reeb) by the KKK element was a white Unitarian minister. Dozens of Protestant clergy, black and white, went to jail in that movement. The Catholic priesthood was not permitted to join with Protestant clergy in these protests until after Vatican II, and even then those participating were mainly nuns The Berrigan brothers did their own thing, but they were 'mavericks'. The heart of the American abolitionist movement was in the Protestant Church. Frederck Douglass and Harriet Tubman, for example, were Methodists. Now, to be fair, much of the resistance to racial progress was among white southern Protestants, and therefore Protestants have little reason to boast. If you remember, there was much resistance within the Boston Irish community as well. 

 Now as to women inferiority. It strikes me that Catholicism has made some progress in that area, especially among nuns, but mainstream Protestantism is miles ahead. Take the United Methodist Church. Of its 50,000 or so US clergy, roughly 10,000 are women. Of its 50 active Bishops the last I heard 14 were women. The % in the UCC probably is higher, There are hundreds of women clergy among Presbyteians, Episcopalisns, etc. The first denomination to have women clergy was the Salvation Army, which developed out of the Methodists. And we could go on and on.

 The only reason I challenge the Catholics here is because so many of them come across as close-minded fanatics. Actually, among my Catholic family members and friends I find very little of that. I presume they would not be the ones to debate on CAF. I find the same among Protestant family members and friends. My concern is more that some of them are becoming disiullusioned by the church. The sex scandal has played a major role - including the Swaggarts, Haggards and Bakkers as well as Catholic priests. And many of them are beginning to feel the church is irrelevant, even a detriment in society. Their attitude toward the churches is much like that of millions toward the government. They have lost confidence in the leadership. While the Catholic clergy are catching most of the flak, the fallout hurts Protestant clergy, also, as many don't make distinctions. Religion is religion.

 Well, that's it for now.
 
Excellent summation, Roy…!
Really?

Would you allow a White Supremacist pastor come and preach at your church, MT? (If “freedom of beliefs” is truly treasured by you and your church).

Also, still waiting for your source for the Middle Ages crossing yourself thing.

And, since you claim that you believe there is only one God…
How do you know this?

Again, how is it that you come to your belief, if you’re not certain that Scripture is inspired?

Do you believe God is Love? If so, why?

Do you believe we’re made in the image and likeness of God? If so, why?
 
No, Paul is very specific. He goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Then in Galatians 1:19 he says:

"But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. " [Gal 1:19]

He specifically says that this James he met was (A) an Apostle.and (B) the brother of Jesus. And that is totally impossible if you insist they were siblings.

You know the early church people were no dummies. They knew more than protestants want to give them credit for. ** Of course protestants don’t like to talk about early church history. After all it is not their history. Their history starts in the 16th century.**
First of all, Paul goes OUT OF HIS WAY to distinguish HIMSELF as an apostle. So was he crazy and somehow think he was one of the 12? Obviously he didn’t have to be one of the original 12 to be considered an apostle by Paul.

Also, you should go and read some Augustine and then compare it to Luther. Much of Luther’s principals are based on Augustine.
 
If I may…

… would you concede, as Roy has on the Protestant side, that Catholics were responsible for inappropriate acts?
Ha! I **just **had an out-of-body rant directed towards my 14yr old daughter (me just having come off a retreat, no less!), so yes, I will certainly acknowledge that Catholics–myself included–are responsible for inappropriate acts.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. (Perhaps you’ll remember what that means from your days of Catholic catechesis. ;))
And if so, wouldn’t that somehow trump a written document? Actions speaking louder than words…?
Absolutely not. The fact that there are sinners in the Church does not change at all my statement: You can thank the Catholic Church that you now know, and that it has taught for 2000 years, that everyone has dignity and deserves respect.

The fact that, despite having asked Roy TWICE for any documentation that states the CC taught something contrary, Roy has remained SILENT on this speaks VOLUMES. VOLUMES!

Oh, and I also provided sources (numerous! and from multiple periods in history!!) to back up my statement. Roy provided: none. 🤷
 
To treat Protestantism as a monolith, of course, as PRmerger appears to do, is ridiculous.
LOL!!

Checkout this that I posted just today.

Heck, I think I’m just going to post it again for you, Roy:

**Originally posted by ME!! ** Today, in fact!
There is no “Protestant view” of things–there’s about 40,000 different “Protestant views”, so who’s to say what the single doctrine Protestants believe is on this issue?
 
However, I don’t know of any Protestant sect that has approved of polygamy,
Irrelevant. Under your paradigm their belief system is just as welcome, are they not?

If not, why not? Why is their belief system inferior to yours? Who has the authority to exclude them from your “big tent”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top