Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[JustaServant]

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected. This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word. Sounds like the threat of excommunication - ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’ That is one of the many reasons I left. Good day, & God bless in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

Young man.
I spent twenty years in fundamentalism. At one point I stood in a pulpit and preached the same kind of drival that you are preaching here. Like you, I was young, full of zeal and had a lot of growing up to do. Right now you believe you have found “the truth”. Your world is divided between the “saved” and the “unsaved”. Your preacher is “opening your eyes” to the Bible and it feeds your ego. The music in your church is uplifting and your emotions are high. The other “born agains” tell you to beware of anything that contridicts what they tell you.
The last point alone should raise a red flag.
Right now you are captivated by the smoke and mirrors. You don’t see the underbelly of it, which would make you scream into the night.
Let me clue you in on a few facts:

1. You are using the Bible as it was never intended to be used.
2. You are declaring who is and who is not a “chrisitan”, the realm of which belongs to God alone.
3. You are declaring false, teachings which have been in the Church for 2000 years. At 33, you are simply not qualified to state holy men who lived long before you to be wrong. Both Catholic and Orthodox churches have been around a long time. What qualifies you to judge anybody or anything they taught? Wisdom listens and learns first. It never comes out of the gate before hearing a matter and considering every view. Before you are a teacher, you have to be a student. You have to have a teachable spirit.

 

[JustaServant]

BornAgainRN

Not sure who the author is of this, but it sums up everything I feel as well.

Letter from an ex-fundamentalist

This is a letter to all the pastors, evangelists, and other assorted leaders in fundamentalism whom I listened to at one time:

Dear _________ :

I just want to write you to tell you that I think you should be ashamed of yourself for giving your people only half (or even less) of the truth of the Bible regarding the Christian Faith and how that Faith is lived out. As a professing follower of Christ, the TRUTH should be very important to you. But the things you have said and the way you have said them have not been truthful at all:

1. You talked about your brand of Christianity as if it went back all the way to the days that Jesus walked the earth. You act as if Jesus Himself was a Baptist/Fundamentalist/Evangelical (take your pick).
   I didn’t know any better and I trusted you.
2. You never told me about the writings of the Early Fathers. You never encouraged me to examine them for myself to see what the disciples of the apostles believed. You acted as if they were all fundamenalists back then.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
3. You taught me that the Church was taken over by a false gospel sometime in the fourth century and the Gospel all but disappeared from the earth until the Reformation. It never occurred to me to connect 2 + 2 and realize that this is exactly what the JW’s and the Mormons teach.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
4. You never taught me about a covenant, even though the Bible speaks of the New Covenant and Jesus said “This is the New Covenant in my Blood”. Since we live in a covenant relationship now (like the Jews did in the Old Covenant) and since the word “covenant” appears over 280 times in the scriptures, I would think that concept would be very important for a Christian to learn about.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
5. What you did tell me about was something called a “dispensation” which appears only 4 times in the scriptures and that only in the NT. But you acted like this is the way God deals with people.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
6. You never told me about the many and numerous translation errors in the Bible which have given rise to many of your fundamenalist doctrines, such as the mistranslation of the word “aion” in Matthew 24: 3 and the mistranslation of “logizomai” in Romans 3 & 4. I though that since you went to Bible College you were profoundly smart and therefore understood these translations to be correct.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
7. You never once told me that the Catholic Church, which you despise, was the Body which gave us the Holy Scriptures. To hear you talk, the Bible just dropped out of thin air some day. Some of you act as if the Reformers invented the Bible after years of pagan ignorance and superstition.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
8. You never told me that anything orthodox I believe about the natures of Jesus, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus the Christ, and all other understandings necessary to salvation, came from the councils of the Catholic Church. Why? Were you afraid that I would realize that perhaps the Church is not the demonic institution you have painted it to be? Or were you afraid that I would realize that any truth you fundamenalists have is only that which the Church defined in Her councils.
   I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.
9. You never once took the time to really talk about the teachings of the Catholic Church. You simply made your accusations from your pulpit and either told or inferred to everyone that ALL Catholics are going straight to hell, with the pope in the front row seat. Were you afraid or unable to defend what you fundamenalists believe? Slander and ad hominum attacks are not a defense.
   But I thought so and I not only trusted you, I parroted your nonsense to all who would listen.
10. You told me that the Church was some sort of “invisible Church” that no one could see because it is made up of all “true believers” from everywhere and every denomination (even though you also taught that only “we” really had everything “right”). I didn’t know what I was missing. I thought I was in the Church and that I was getting every good thing God had for me
    I didn’t know any better, and I trusted you.

You better think a long time about what you are doing and what you are teaching. It is bad enough that you make false accusations (which the Lord hates) against our Lord’s Church, but you are out there aggressively stealing His sheep from His flock which He put on earth. You seem to think think that since you “accept Jesus”, you won’t have to answer for anything at all because you are “covered by the Blood of Jesus”.

Well, I have news for you, it took me a while (too long, actually), but I finally had my eyes opened, and that is not what the Holy Scriptures teach. They teach that at the Resurrection, Jesus will judge ALL MEN (you get that? – ALL!) BY THEIR DEEDS, and based on what they have done, they will either live or die eternally!! That is what Jesus taught in John 5: 28 - 29 and guess what, that is what the Catholic Faith teaches us also, because the Catholic Faith teaches what Jesus taught!!

Sincerely yours,

Your former member

I have yet to identify who the author of this is, but it speaks to everything I felt when I re-crossed the Tiber. I have redescovered the joy of belonging to the Church Jesus founded.

 

[Erich]

A person is ‘born again’ when they have believed in Jesus as the ‘true living water’ that cleanses them (refer to John 4) - NOT baptism.

So Jesus was lying when He said in John 3:5, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”?

It is through Baptism that one is saved, just as the Bible says in 1 Peter 3:20-21 and that it is through Baptism, water and the Spirit, that you are “born again,” just as the Bible says in John 3:5. The early Christians uniformly identified this latter verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.

And as far as the ‘baptized by desire’ & ‘invincible ignorance’ argument goes, all that does is makes an exception clause to Jesus’ exception clause about how to get into Heaven.

In all of Scripture, Jesus only promised one person that “you will be with Me in Paradise” … and Scripture is silent on whether or not that person received water baptism. If he did not, then we have prima facie evidence of the efficacy of Baptism of Desire.

 

[Church_Militant]

Using quotes from early Catholic fathers to support Catholic faith is really ‘circular reasoning.’ It’s like saying ‘the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is true, because the Catholic church says they are.’ Not very objective.

And yet for the first 1500 years of Christian history, these men were the only Christians and they died for that most holy faith. And you seek to deny and ignore their authentic and documented writings concerning the beliefs and practices of believers during that time? That’s pretty weak since you accept and follow the teachings of far more modern men as accurate and authoritative who were some 1,500-2,000 years removed from the Apostles? Obviously your own bias gets in your way, that you presuppose that anyone and anything Catholic cannot be Christian, when, in fact that is totally historical hogwash.

Also, if baptized Christians are ‘born-again,’ based on John 3:3,5, then that would mean that EVERYONE would have to be baptized, or they’d end up in Hell. (Replace the word ‘born’ with ‘baptize’ in John 3:5 & you’ll see what I mean).

You’ll have to take that up with Our Lord, since it is He who made that clear mandate for His Church.
Examples:

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

What does Ananias tell St. Paul at his conversion?

Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Right there in the Word of God we are told that Baptism literally washes away sins. Now if you tell me that you take the Bible as your final and ultimate authority, then why do you not obey it?

If one takes the Bible literally I have to continue to wonder how this sacrament can be so marginalized.

And as far as the ‘baptized by desire’ & ‘invincible ignorance’ argument goes, all that does is makes an exception clause to Jesus’ exception clause about how to get into Heaven. A person is ‘born again’ when they have believed in Jesus as the ‘true living water’ that cleanses them (refer to John 4) - NOT baptism.

Says you and whoever taught you this error, but obviously that does not agree with the New Testament as shown above. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png

 

[padrepio_2012]

So if what people say is true and there are indeed half brothers and sisters of Jesus, then that means that today in our world there are in fact relatives of Jesus Himself? Jesus would be their great great great great ect. half uncle?? It sort of downgrades Our Lord if you ask me. it makes Him appear too human, not even divine. And more overly, if He had brothers and sisters, then you know who the favorite would be instantly in the family. I mean it’s ridiculous to even think that Our Lord had brothers and sisters. just the concept. You don’t need the Bible to tell you that Jesus was an only child. it only makes sense. But if one insits on proof, here you are.

The Bible verse is the one at Jesus’ death when He is about to give up His Spirit. But befroe He does, he overcomes His death agony and hoarsely beckons His mother and beloved disciple John to come over. He then says’ Woman, behold your son!" and “son, behold your Mother!” now let’s examine this. If Jesus had siblings as is the thought from our denominational Christian brothers, then where are they now in this moment of the Bible? they aren’t going to be with Jesus in His last moments? Furthermore, in ancient Judea it was custom for the male leader of the house, either the father or eldest son, whoever was in charge, to give custody of all he owned to the next eldest son, ( including the custody of his mother and sisters). If Jesus REALLY had a brother, He wouldn’t of given His mother over to John, a best friend. He would’ve given Him to His brother. And furthermore, there is no word in the language of that time to express cousin, so to take the Bible word for word and say"ohh it says Our Lord had brothers, it must be true" is dumb. I speak Arabic, a language directly derived from aramaic and i can honestly say there is still no genuine independent word for cousin, even after 1400 yeaars of the language being here. the closest word we have for cousin is to say , “son of” whoever… or daughter of… there is simply no word for cousin. besides this, in ancient Judea, cousins and family like that were considered “close” family, they all generally lived in the same area and would sometimes live in the same house. It wasn’t like today where cousins are considered distant family, as well as uncles,aunts, ect.

And if you still think you should take the Bible word for word, then think of this. There’s two accounts of the creation story in Genesis. one says God created everything and then man and then the woman was created from the man, the other says God created man and woman together, then everything else. Which story is true? they both can’t possibly be true if one takes the account word for word. The Bible sometimes must be interpreted in different ways than the word for word meaning. Translation errors do occurr, as well as improvisions for words that do not exist in one language but do in another.

also to all Christians who think that the Bible is the one and only source of Truth and that Sacred Tradition is kapoot: you’ve been misinformed greatly. The Bible was not even a complete book until the 4-5th centuries. so what were the Christians doing before this time? from where did they base all of their theology and Faith? there were so many different texts being read and spread around at that time, many of which arent in our Bible today, so were they wrong in what they did? of course not. THey got their theology from oral word, from Tradition! you must think about this. Tradition is very important. And besides that,Catholics are the ones who compiled the bible, i think we know our stuff

 

[Boulder257]

I may be the only one feeling this way, but I think this thread has run it’s course. I don’t want to stand in the way of constructive dialogue, but I just don’t see this going anywhere after 8 pages of posts.

Steve, I hope you are taking as much time to listen as you do to speak. I’ll say it one more time: Your arguments have been refuted countless times throughout this forum alone. Try a search my friend and you may find the answer you are looking for. Although, the more I read the more I realize you are not here for answers, only to spread your personal interpretation of them.

To my Catholic Brethren, you have fought the good fight. It may be time to shake the dust from your feet on this one.

Peace to each of you.

 

[SonCatcher]

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected. This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word. Sounds like the threat of excommunication - ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’ That is one of the many reasons I left. Good day, & God bless in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

There’s no need to be quiet - just to abide by the rules. This board welcomes many non-Catholics from Orthodox to Fundamentalists to Jews to Muslims to Buddhists to Hindus to Atheists. They do get into heated debates all the time but manage to stay on the board while vociferously promoting their own views because they play by the rules.

Meanwhile, there are staunch Catholics who find themselves banned because they can’t abide by the rules (often for behaving disrespectfully toward the aforementioned non-Catholics).

Using quotes from early Catholic fathers to support Catholic faith is really ‘circular reasoning.’

Not at all. The ECFs are the ones who assembled Scripture.

If you wanted to understand the U.S. Constitution, would you limit yourself to reading only its text or would you also read the notes and other writings by the framers?

 

[Erich]

if He had brothers and sisters, then you know who the favorite would be instantly in the family.

I can’t even begin to imagine the inferiority complex any (hypothetical) blood siblings of Jesus would surely have had growing up, due to their inability to live up to the example set by their older brother.

Why can’t you be like your brother Jesus?
He never gives us a moments trouble.
He always makes his bed.
He always picks up his toys.
He is never a minute late for curfew.
He always brings Dad’s camel home clean.
He never talks back.
He even cleans the ring out of the bathtub and hangs up his clothes.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Steve, you are barking up the wrong family tree here.

:thumbsup:

 

[antonyfatima]

Dear sir born again?],though you were a former catholic,you please don’t come to a conclusion suddenly whenever you reading the bible .pl ask politely your doubts to others who knows.

 

[adrift]

I may be the only one feeling this way, but I think this thread has run it’s course. I don’t want to stand in the way of constructive dialogue, but I just don’t see this going anywhere after 8 pages of posts.
.

I think it depends on your settings how many pages are displayed. I have only two pages of a 119 replies. 119 all the replies have been very good without any good replies from the OP.
Will he come again:shrug:will it matter if he does not respond in any meaningful way:nope:

 

[jochoa]

I can’t even begin to imagine the inferiority complex any (hypothetical) blood siblings of Jesus would surely have had growing up, due to their inability to live up to the example set by their older brother.

Why can’t you be like your brother Jesus?
He never gives us a moments trouble.
He always makes his bed.
He always picks up his toys.
He is never a minute late for curfew.
He always brings Dad’s camel home clean.
He never talks back.
He even cleans the ring out of the bathtub and hangs up his clothes.

Brilliant perspective to consider!! Thanks for sharing!

 

[adrift]

The Immaculate Conception contradicts Scripture (Matthew 1:25). r.

QUOTE]
BornAgainRN;9374587:

Or is it, that you don’t think they say what they are actually saying. 1 John 5:13 tells us that we can be assured of our salvation based on what has been WRITTEN. Only God can convince you of that. Also, if God cannot change, then neither should the beliefs of His Church (limbo, indulgences to get out of purgatory, non-Catholics will go to Hell - taught prior to Vatican II, as far back as the days of Luther, etc.) Again, check out the Bible verses provided, write a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, & the confusion over all the James’, Joseph’s, Judes’, & Mary’s will clear up to see that Mary & Joseph did indeed have children.

I just included some that affect salvation, which they teach is wrong. I would think that would fall under ‘immoral’ since they are teaching false gospels (salvation can be earned, salvation can be lost, salvation can be re-earned, Muslims (& other nonchristians) who reject Christ can get to Heaven, etc). Also, you might want to read up on a some books by Fr. Thomas Doyle on the subject of self-imposed 'immorality that the Catholic church caused itself & maintained over the centuries, that out of respect for Catholics, I won’t go into here.

The statement that you write about the Church shows that you know nothing of the teachings. A prime example is the Immaculate Conception remark. You have no idea what the Immaculate Conception is.

That you go by scripture is not true. You go by an interpretation by preconceived ideas.

Questions to hard for you to address are ignored.

Scripture does not support your view.

Mary asked the angel how can I get pregnant since I know not man? Not Oh wow Joseph my husband, for they were married at the time of the Angle’s announcement, are going to have a baby but how?

The society of the time lived in family groups so your go back and check out the family does not consider this but puts it in modern times for family.
That these brothers you speak of treated Jesus as a younger sibling according to the times escapes your notice.

That Jesus gave his mother to a non-family member also you do not address.

That those mentioned by name have other parents you try to explain away but it doesn’t hold up. You are demanding that all the brothers be mentioned together or they are not the same is ludicrous.

When you look at Scripture it is obvious that Mary had not other sons otherwise she would have been in their home not John’s.

 

[Pheonix]

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected.

There’s no need to be quiet. You’re free to discuss your beliefs and the beliefs of the Catholic Church. However, you must do so in a charitable, respectful manner. If you do not, then you’re not following Jesus’ teachings of love and respect.

This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums,

Are you serious? You’re on a Christian forum right now. Catholics are Christian, if you didn’t already know.

that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions,

All forums have rules. Period. Our “particular restrictions” are no less reasonable than what you will see on other forums, Protestant or non-Christian.

Proselytizing? That should be an obvious one. You do not win converts by forcing your faith down other people’s throats. You don’t have to agree with Catholic theology. However, what you’ve been doing for most of this thread is “my faith is correct; yours is wrong” without giving any logical, credible arguments or evidence as to why your views are correct. Therefore, you can be accused of proselytizing.

One topic per thread? Also obvious. If we talk about ten different topics in one thread, then it’s obvious going to get very jumbled and chaotic.

which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this,

Oh, really? What about Protestant forums like CARM? I have known many Catholics who have participated on CARM’s forum, and they get banned shortly after they present an argument that the anti-Catholics of CARM cannot answer. How’s THAT for a lack of confidence?

The CA forums wants to reflect Jesus’ teachings. In order to reflect some of Jesus’ teachings, members must be respectful and charitable. You can look around this site yourself, and you will find many non-Catholics and non-Christians. They disagree with Church teachings, but they discuss the differences like civilized human beings.

Non-Catholics and non-Christians have been banned because they have breached the rules, despite being given warnings. Likewise, Catholics have been banned for the same reasons. Therefore, there is no problem with confidence on these forums. It doesn’t matter what faith, or lack thereof, you have. The moderators do not show partiality when the rules are being broken.

that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions,or else banishment,

You can get banned from any forum for being rude, or for trying to proselytize others. This forum is no different.

Sounds like the threat of excommunication

You’re not showing that you’re really knowledgable about Catholic teachings. Protestants like yourself CANNOT be excommunicated. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty reserved for Catholics only.

• ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’

First of all, the Catholic Church does not teach “believe us or else.” Find me one Church document that states this in proper context.

Second, you haven’t proved ANY of your claims. You’ve just given us text-proofs and expect us to take you at your word. It doesn’t work that way. If you want us to even consider your claims, you must not only provide scriptural evidence, but you must also provide logical, credible explanations as to why Scripture supports your views. You have yet to do this.

That is one of the many reasons I left.

You left because of claim that the Church doesn’t even teach. Like I said, show me one Church document that states, within the proper context, that you must “believe us or else.” If you cannot, then you’re making a fallacious argument.

 

[Pheonix]

but Catholicism is still a denomination of Christianity.

No, it’s not. The Catholic Church was founded in 33 C. E. when Jesus Christ proclaimed St. Peter as the “rock” on which He would build His Church. The Catholic Church is the original Church; her theology was whole and complete before a single line of the New Testament was even written.

Denominations began appearing during and after the Reformation, when those who didn’t accept the Church teachings fell out of communion with her. The reason denominations are called such is because they are not in communion with anyone. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is in communion with all her other Rites and has been since 33 C. E.

Remember, believers were first called Christians in the Bible - not Catholics.

And the word “Catholic” is used to describe the Church in Scripture. What’s your point?

The term Catholic didn’t even appear until the early 2nd Century, after the Bible was completed.

The Bible was completed in 384 C. E., when Pope Damasus proclaimed what books were God’s inspired Word. “Catholic” was used to described the Church long before that time period.

“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” St. Ignatius. Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 107 C. E.

Your claim is thus veritably false. The early Church was known as the “Catholic Church” at least 277 years prior to the Bible being completed.

Prior to that, the ‘true’ Church was called Christians, which is what I am.

First, provide credible historical evidence that the “true Church” was solely called the “Christian Church.”

Second, yes, you are a Christian. However, you’re a Protestant Christian. “Non-denominational” is a Protestant denomination, whether you like it or not.

Roman Catholicism is still just a denomination, just not a Protestant one obviously.

It is inaccurate to call the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church.” The Roman Catholic Church is just one of about 22 Rites within the whole of the Catholic Church.

 

[TimothyH]

Mary concieved Jesus by the Holy Spirit. For Mary to have then concieved another child by another man would make Mary an adulteress. The implications of this statement are profound.

For Mary to have concieve a child by anyone other than the Holy Spirit means that Jesus Christ is the son of a adulteress. What would that make Christ’s body, the Church?

The implications of Mary having had children by anyone other than the Holy Spirit should not be underestimated. The Body of Christ is either the spotless and pure offspring of a spotless and pure mother, Mary, and her spotles and pure spouse, the Holy Spirit, or it is an illegitimate bastard son of an adulteress.

There is no room for anything inbetween.

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

To anyone who says the Immaculate Conception is not Scriptural, I encourage them to read Revelation 12. Specifically the part about the woman who gave birth to the child, and how she was given the wings of the eagle and taken to a safe place prepared for her.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you for posting. It is a great read that is unfortunately to true.

It was a bit of a vent, but is intended to provoke some thought.

 

[Jeanne_S]

To anyone who says the Immaculate Conception is not Scriptural, I encourage them to read Revelation 12. Specifically the part about the woman who gave birth to the child, and how she was given the wings of the eagle and taken to a safe place prepared for her.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception,this refers to Mary being immaculatlely conceived,free of original sin,as she was chosen by God to the Christ Bearer.A lot of misunderstanding by and including Catholics to believe this refers to Mary’s conception of Christ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

here’s another thing.

There are dozens, hundreds even, of references regarding various ‘teachings’ about Christ. The Church spoke up overwhelmingly **** when an error or false teaching was circulated. Look at the writings against Nestorianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Iconoclassicism, etc.

Now if it is so dang clear in the Bible that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters, where in the name of Waukegan Illinois are the teachings about it? There were all sorts of stories about people associated with Jesus --the apostles, St. Paul, Mary Magdalen, Joseph of Arimathea, etc. But NOTHING about "Jesus’ little brother Joses. After his big brother died, Joses went out and was martyred for the faith. . .****

And nothing about "Jesus’s sisters, Rachel and Miriam. Rachel married Lazarus, and the two of them went off to spread the gospel in India following the road that Jesus traveled in the Lost Years’. . .

Nope. For 1500 years, there was nothing about Jesus’ SIBLINGS. And there were TONS of writings about Mary being a **perpetual Virgin ** going back to like the 3rd century, PREDATING the Bible canon!

IF Jesus had ‘sibs born of Mary and Joseph’, then this ‘perpetual virginity thing’ would have been FOUGHT as a heresy JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER HERESIES WERE.

But it wasn’t. . .because it is NOT a heresy, it’s the Truth. The ‘teaching of men’ (which Scripture condemns) is this so-called ‘Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters’–a teaching NEVER taught in Christianity prior to AD1500.