Did Jesus have siblings?

[PRmerger]

These Biblical passages declare that, Catholic or not, those who chose through their free will to turn away from the holy ways, the righteousness of God, because of their mortal sins, they eternally condemn themselves.

'zactly!

Now, it’s just not for us to determine who has turned “away from the holy ways, the righteousness of God because of their mortal sins” and thus who is eternally condemned.

 

[guanophore]

It was a stupid proclamation he made that isn’t backed up by the bible or church history IMO.

Please refrain from disrespecting our faith by using such terms as “stupid” to describe it. You dont’ have to agree with the Teachings that we have received from the Apostles, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, if you want to continue posting here, you are required to be respectful of our faith.

 

[guanophore]

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

I agree. On that same principle, when He said to them that He would send the HS, who would lead them into all truth, He was addressing His Apostles, and those in unity with them. the promise does not apply to those who depart from that unity.

Anyone who embraces the heresy that Mary had other children after Jesus has departed from the faith that was handed down to us from the Apsotles.

 

[Sir_Knight]

'zactly!

Now, it’s just not for us to determine who has turned “away from the holy ways, the righteousness of God because of their mortal sins” and thus who is eternally condemned.

We are not to judge anyone’s sins but scripture also instructs us not to be yoked with unbelievers.

 

[guanophore]

I disagree in part and I think we have been over this before. Any way I disagree that Matthias was an Apostle. I say he was only a bishop. He was the first non Apostle bishop. The book of Revelation limits the number of Apostles to twelve. See Rev 21:4

Why do you suppose the Church has always honored him as such?

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Judas was not an Apostlesince he was never sent [He committed suicide befor the Great commission} Peter acknowledges as much when in Acts 1:17 he says of Judas:

“Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.” [Acts 1:17]

Other translations have it as a “share” in this ministry. The idea is that Judas was not a full fledged Apostle having missed out on the events in the upper room after Jesus resurrected and never received the Commission to go and teach the nations. Peter also says that Judas was numbered with them. He stops well short of saying that Judas was one of them, i.e. an Apostle,

How come the Scriptures refer to him as such? Judas was numbered among the 12 until the betrayal. It is clear that Judas abandoned his “office” and that is why another had to be appointed to take it.

Notice also that after his election Scripture says of Matthias that he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.  Again he is numbered with them but is he one of them.  The fact that after the election of Matthias the verse in Act saying he was numbered also says there are still eleven Apostles.

Why do you suppose that the Church teaches otherwise?

The twelth Apostle is Paul. Judas and Matthias were not Apostles.

There were many more apostles than the 12. Paul was not one of the 12. Paul did not meet the criteria to be one of the 12.

 

[guanophore]

Right…

“You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says.”

… should have been read as…

You can’t be a Catholic if you don’t believe everything that he says in regards to spirituality, which seems to extend to celibacy of priests, perpetual virginity, etcetera."

You are moving in the right direction.

The Popes have made only two infallible pronouncements in the last two centuries. These are dogmas that are required to be believed. However, the Pope does not make any such ex cathedra statments that have not been part of the Catholic faith since the beginning. All of them have been made to combat heresy. .

The Pope has the Petrine duties, which have been given to the Apostle Peter by Christ, and passed on to his successors. It is his duty to feed and care for the sheep. His pastoral instructions, which are given pretty much every day in one form, or another, are given for that purpose. It would be unwise for any Catholic not to take advantage of his sage instruction. In the last century, we have been blessed with holy popes- devout men who are good personal role models as well as good teachers.

The celibacy of priests is a discipline of the Latin Rite, and is not a dogma. The practice is different in the Eastern Rites.

The perpetual virginity is a teaching we have received from the Apostles. It is the duty of the Church to preserve all of these teachings, and the Pope does so.

 

[guanophore]

For the record: former Catholic… Unitarian for six months… have doubts of Jesus’ divinity…

Why is that? many more doubts about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church like a marionette…

Well I should hope so! I have never seen any evidence that anything like this has ever occurrred.

Exactly. Picking and choosing. So it was sort of inspired, to some…? But not enough to make the cut? Teaching is not based on it… yet… this … teaching… is … based… on… it…? Among other things, granted, but still based on it. Maybe I’m schizophrenic after all.

No, you are not schizo. There are many inspired doctrines contained within works that have errors. The books that made up the NT are considered to be without error. The fact that part of the infallible teaching of the Church (such as Mary being a perpetual virgin) is found in the Protoevangelium of James only indicates that there is some truth in these apocryphal works, and that this was a belief that was held from the beginning.

Well, James does, right? Don’t you claim that he is a half-brother? But clearly, in the BIble, it says James, Brother of Jesus many times, doesn’t it?

Yes, James was a very close relative of Jesus, who grew up with him like a brother. He was not, however, a son of Mary the mother of our Lord. James “the brother of the Lord” is also the brother of Jude and Joses (Joseph). They are the sons of Mary (the “sister” of Jesus Mother) and Alphaeus (Clopas),

We dont’ have all the information about how they are related. Clopas may have been Mary the mother of Jesus’ brother. He could have been a brother of Joseph, her husband. So also might the Mary their mother who is described as “sister” to the mother of our Lord.

 

[guanophore]

Does it say James, son of Mary, anywhere in the Bible?

Yes! As a matter of fact, this “other Mary” is specifically recorded to be the mother of James.

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?

Mat 27:55-56 And many women were there beholding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

The Mother of our Lord was at the foot of the cross with John. Mary, the Mother of James and Joses was “afar” with some of the other women who had followed Him.

Mary, the mother of James and Joses is referred to as “the other Mary”, and was with Mary of Magdalena at the time of the buriel.

Mar 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

She is called Mary the mother of (one of her kids) and never Mary the mother of Jesus.

Luk 24:10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.

Her children were among those in the Upper Room at Pentecost:

Act 1:14 These all with one accord continued stedfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

There were about 120 of Jesus’ “brethren” there.

 

[guanophore]

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.

IF your approach is true (and there is a big IF there) then yes, there is no doubt and you are assured to be correct.

Really?! By whose authority do you think the bible was assembled?

If my approach is true, then we don't actually know exactly what Jesus said or taught (we have a pretty good idea most likely though from the gospels) and we don't know what is needed for salvation.

I am surprised to hear you admit this.

 But, neither of our approaches are more valid than the other.

Ah, but they are! That which we have received from the Apostles is 100% reliable.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes! As a matter of fact, this “other Mary” is specifically recorded to be the mother of James.

Not sure what you mean by “yes!”, dear guanophore. My question was, “Does it say James, son of Mary, anywhere in the Bible?” (And I specified that the Mary I was referring to was the Blessed Mother.)

Does your “yes!” mean, “Yes, I am glad you asked that!”?

 

[guanophore]

I don't think that passage proves anything actually.  Matthias just becomes one of the twelve.  This is likely to do with the fact that there are 12 tribes of Israel, so it was important to have 12 apostles.  I don't see anything about succession there.

Perhaps you dont;’ understand what the word “succession” means? It means exactly what you have stated here. Matthias became one of the 12. He replaced Judas, whose office was vacated.

The passage proves that the Apostles understood that there were to be 12 of them, and that it was approproiate, when an office was vacated, for them to fill it.

 I don't know what that quote even means in your last sentence.  Who said that the church had authority for 400 years?  I don't think that the church ever really had authority to speak for Jesus, other than those that knew Jesus personally (and really all they can do is recall events and speculate on things that Jesus did not talk about).  After a generation or two, all the church really had were the gospels and epistles, as well as some hearsay.  But the further removed from Jesus the church became, the more it started to be based on scripture and oral tradition, and the less valid it became (in my opinion at least).

Why are you here on CAF, hello, if you feel this way?

 

[inkaneer]

Perhaps you dont;’ understand what the word “succession” means? It means exactly what you have stated here. Matthias became one of the 12. He replaced Judas, whose office was vacated.

The passage proves that the Apostles understood that there were to be 12 of them, and that it was approproiate, when an office was vacated, for them to fill it.

I sincerely hope that you do not mean by the word “succession” that one Apostle [Matthias] replaces another Apostle [Judas]. Because if you do then please enlighten us as to which Apostle replaced Peter.

 

[guanophore]

By Church I think he just meant a community of believers. I don’t think he meant a church as we know it today.

You are in error. The Church established by Christ has His authority, offices, and required obedience.

 

[guanophore]

Poor choice of words.

Is it more accurate to say that the Spirit guides the Church, making its teaching infallible? This is what I have a hard time believing, and why I am no longer Catholic.

Yes, this is accurate. Are you saying that you have a problem being led by the HS in an infallible way?

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it a Protestant view that James was a son of Joseph from an earlier marriage? To the people of the day (not being “in the loop” of who Jesus’ real father is), this would clearly make him the borther of Jesus, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that was my understanding of the Protestant view and that was the scenario that I was referring to.

Not that I have every heard. It is a common belief in the Eastern Church.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

James is depicted assisting Joseph to take the child and His motehr to Egypt.

 

[guanophore]

I am not confident that God has manifested himself exclusively to the peoples of the Old Testament;

Who ever claimed that?!

In fact, the Bible clearly states the opposite. For someone who claims to have been catholic, you sure have a lot of anti-Catholic ideas.

   so yes, I doubt that the Bible is truly inspired, front to back, each and every book. I do not posit that there is a 'rival' inspired text; I think all of us, across the world and throughout history, are struggling with the same questions, and have the same basic toolbox with which to work from.

Well, I commend you to your toolbox. I feel I am fortunate to have access to the fullness of Truth that is in Jesus. I don’t know how people like you survive.

I think that God has manifested himslef to all throughout history; I’m guessing in a similar way that you refer to God extending his grace to every person. Beyond that, I think that there are several ways of knowing, and the Church is not the exclusive one.

Yes, this is finally a very Catholic statement.

 

[Major_Tom]

Well I should hope so! I have never seen any evidence that anything like this has ever occurrred.

A I think I posted in an earlier thread, that was a poor choice of words. Please consider them rescinded.

 

[Roy5]

One more pitch for ‘Big Tent’ Christianity

Okay. I still feel compelled to try to reason with some ‘hard-shell’ posters on the question of ‘big tent’ Christianity. What is it? It’s a willingness to acknowledge that different people have the right to different opinions when it comes to Christian doctrine, and that we should respect that right - and even their opinions. True. This isn’t as easy as declaring that our version of Christianity has ‘all the correct anwers’. It can give us comfort and even a certain pride to believe that our church is the one and only true church and all the rest are to one degree or another off base.

If we want to believe that,…well, it’s a free country. But lets face it: the Bible can be very confusing. Jesus tells us that if someone hits us on one cheek, turn the other. How many of us take that literally or seriously? Maybe some Quakers and the Amish, but few others. Jesus tells us that if our right hand offends us, cut it off. Now what does he mean by that? He commands us to love one another, but I haven’t read much about love for Luther and other Reformers in these postings. I’ve felt enormous bitterness and even hate instead.

 What I'm getting at is that there are different and understandable ways of interpreting scripture. Some people read the book of 'Revelation" as a blueprint for the final days and believe we are in those days. Possible, though I don't think so. What about the marriage of priests and the ordination of women? Isn't it Paul who says that a bishop should have only one wife? I don't see that as support for compulsory celibacy. Now, as for women, wasn't Phoebe a Deaconness? Or, maybe that's debatable?

 Actually, many things in scripture are debatable. How far should we take Christ's call that we forgive one another? The Nazis? The Reformers? The Muslim terrorists? Predatory priests?  

 So,,,,my point is that there should be a 'big tent', big enough for Christians who profess love of God and love of one another to belong. Some people would thereby cut themselves out, frankly: those who hate, racial bigots, religious bigots, etc.  But when it comes to complex matters of doctrine - e. g., transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, papal infaillibility in faith and morals, dispensationalism, predestination, speaking in tongues, and assorted dogmae - well, discuss and even debate them in an atmosphere of amicability.

  Why would such civility be so shocking to Christians? It certainly would make Christians like me, who have an open mind (and more questions than answers in some matters re scripture and doctrine) feel welcome in our churches. For those who still want to be strict believers, such as traditional Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants, fine. If you can accept all that, hang in. But don't make those of us who think independently of any particular theological system feel like we are wicked sinners because we think for ourselves. I feel that God would want us to use our brains and not follow slavishly any church or theology. Well, that's my honest view. 

  I was asked (#485) if I thought that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Now, here we have one of those questions on which Christians should be able to disagree. What does the Bible mean? That we are like the God who walked in the garden searching for Adam and Eve? An anthropomorphic God? No, I don't believe that. So, I don't think we look at all like God. Are we perfect, omniscient, omnipotent like God? Certainly not. So what does it mean? Something that scholars have pondered over the centuries, and that's okay. I don't have a very good answer and don't resent people offering a variety of answers. Probably it has something to do with the idea that we are the children of God, with souls, with spirits, etc. But I'm not sure anyone knows enough about God to provide an authoritative answer to this puzzling and fascinating question.

  God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox - and I would add Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains Sikhs, and all sorts of other people of every creed, color and country.  .

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes, this is accurate. Are you saying that you have a problem being led by the HS in an infallible way?

As a rhetorical construct, no. I simply doubt, however, that this is the case.

 

[Major_Tom]

Who ever claimed that?!

In fact, the Bible clearly states the opposite. For someone who claims to have been catholic, you sure have a lot of anti-Catholic ideas.

Well, I commend you to your toolbox. I feel I am fortunate to have access to the fullness of Truth that is in Jesus. I don’t know how people like you survive.

Yes, this is finally a very Catholic statement.

So I see my shortand has tripped me up again…! Yes, I know that God has manifested himself somehow to all peoples (the aforementioned grace). What I trying to refer to is the Catholic belief that, once exposed to the fullness of Catholic faith, there is no other very viable road to God, yes?

Well, I commend you to your toolbox. I feel I am fortunate to have access to the fullness of Truth that is in Jesus. I don’t know how people like you survive.
statement.

Then good for you! No, seriously, good for you. Ideally, religion should be a tool that allows you to focus on being all that you can be. If Catholicism works for you, sweet.

I’m not above using that tone every now and again, probably on someone that I thought was a real crackpot (or maybe the odd Scientologist ). If I appear that way to you… I suppose there ain’t much I can do about it!