Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[sola_scriptura]

If this is true there will not 2 groups but 3 on judgement day.

We go to heaven – but Catholics go to purgatory first.

 

[Good_Fella]

On what grounds are you making this claim? Did Jesus ever warn anyone that if they do not believe in the perpetual virginity of His mother they would be reckoned with on Judgement day? Did the apostles teach this?

Luke certainly did.

 

[Good_Fella]

OK … I guess we’ll have to wait & see whose right huh? I’m pretty confident though.

Your personal theology dismisses the Christian virtue of hope.

 

[justasking4]

Luke certainly did.

Where in Luke do you think he thought this?

 

[guanophore]

Where in Luke do you think he thought this?

Luke precisely parallels the story of Mary with the journey of the Ark. This is no accident, but a carefully crafted presentation of the gospel to show that what was concealed in the old is revealed in the new. Every Jew knew what happened to someone who touched the Ark who was not authorized to do so by God.

 

[guanophore]

This oral tradition of which you speak of went on for centuries. There are no written records from the time it would have happened. Correct?

No, there were many written records. There were over 400 documents claiming to be inspired scripture, not to mention historical documents that did not claim to be inspired.

On what grounds are you making this claim? Did Jesus ever warn anyone that if they do not believe in the perpetual virginity of His mother they would be reckoned with on Judgement day? Did the apostles teach this?

Jesus stated “he who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects me”. This is the authority He gave to the Church.

Yes, the Apostles knew Jesus’ mother intimately. She often travelled with them, and after HIs death, ministered to them. They surely knew that she had not other children.

 

[Matariel]

My question I guess is, what would be so horrible about Mary and Joseph being normal husband and wife and having other Children after Yeshua? But on the same side what would be so wrong if they didn’t?

Mary did not bear other children, simply because she was the Ark of the New Covenant, which bore the Word of God. Her lofty purpose and dedication was bringing forth God into the world.

Just as the Temple, sacred vessels, and the old Ark were sacred and pure, free from all ordinary use, so Mary, the Mother of God, is dedicated to this purpose of bringing forth God. And Isaiah is clear that she was a virgin.

Also, St. Paul is clear that celibacy is the higher road (although, of course, marriage is also a lofty calling) and speaks of married celibates (have to find a reference for that).

Also, according to tradition (not Tradition with a capital T) Mary made a vowel of perpetual celibacy.

 

[KenEOTE]

Mary did not bear other children, simply because she was the Ark of the New Covenant, which bore the Word of God. Her lofty purpose and dedication was bringing forth God into the world.

Just as the Temple, sacred vessels, and the old Ark were sacred and pure, free from all ordinary use, so Mary, the Mother of God, is dedicated to this purpose of bringing forth God. And Isaiah is clear that she was a virgin.

Also, St. Paul is clear that celibacy is the higher road (although, of course, marriage is also a lofty calling) and speaks of married celibates (have to find a reference for that).

Also, according to tradition (not Tradition with a capital T) Mary made a vowel of perpetual celibacy.

I have heard all that. I am not disputing she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. That is what Isaiah says he never said she will always be a virgin. My question is would it be so horrible if Mary and Joseph did have other children in a loving marriage? My other question was would it be so horrible if she did not? You feel she didn’t have more children so then… Would it have been a sin for her to have children with her husband Joseph?

 

[maryj]

I’ve copied and pasted from what I’ve posted on another thread (lazy typing skills this morning)

Mathew 15 and John 19:27
In Mathew chpt 15, Jesus vehemently condemns the Pharisees because they had a procedure, the Korban rule, that allowed children to avoid taking care of their parents. In the OT, children had a solemn obligation to care for their elderly parents. This is why the Pharisees scheme to let people shirk this responsibility made Jesus so angry.
John 19:26-27 the scene at the cross. Jesus is about to die. Apparently, Joseph had alredy died because he is no longer mentioned after Jesus begins His ministry. Mary is in danger of being left alone, so He entrusts her to John the Apostle, Zebedee’s son, who is not a sibling of our Lord. If Jesus had younger siblings, as Protestants claim, His behavior makes no sense. JESUS HAD CONDEMNED THE PHARISEES FOR DISPENSING PEOPLE FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS. Why would he dispense His own siblings from this important obligation? Such inconsistency is INCONCEIVABLE.
After the Ascension, the followers of Jesus- including Mary, John the Apostle with whom Mary now lived, and the brothers of Jesus gathered in the upper room Acts 1:13-14
If these brothers of Jesus were also Mary’s sons, Mary would be praying togethar with her son’s who were faithful followers of Jesus, and yet going home with John. In her jewish culture, such a situation would simply NOT HAPPEN.

Jesus Christ is not inconsistent.

 

[rinnie]

On what grounds are you making this claim? Did Jesus ever warn anyone that if they do not believe in the perpetual virginity of His mother they would be reckoned with on Judgement day? Did the apostles teach this?

No Jesus taught us to listen and stay true to the Church. The Catholic Church and to not let other come in and try to turn you from the truth.

That is why he left us the Apostles. To teach us, not to listen to people like you who try to turn us against the Church and twist scripture around to fit what they want it to say.

But so in a way yes, Jesus did teach us that, Because our Apostles handed down the teachings from day one. They said She was a Virgin, remained a Virgin, and never had other children.

That came from the Apostles, again how can you rely on the Church for Cannon of Scripture, and then turn around and call them liars.

 

[rinnie]

I have heard all that. I am not disputing she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. That is what Isaiah says he never said she will always be a virgin. My question is would it be so horrible if Mary and Joseph did have other children in a loving marriage? My other question was would it be so horrible if she did not? You feel she didn’t have more children so then… Would it have been a sin for her to have children with her husband Joseph?

It would not be a sin, and it would not be a big deal, THATS THE POINT. If she did the Church would not deny it. But the point is she didnt thats the point.

And the bigger point is everything is not in the bible. And it tells you that in the bible. The Bible is not enough. NOT ALL IS WRITTEN. AGAIN ORAL TEACHINGS. But Just for asking ignores this.

Then she asks over and over what Traditon, I tell her over and over 2 thes 2:15 APOSTOLIC TRADITION, she wont listen. She goes by her own tradition the tradition the bible itself tells us to stay away from. Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of MEN.

Its all about AUTHORITY. Where does SS and JFAsking get their authority. They dont have any.

What did the Jews ask Jesus where did you get your Authority, What did Jesus say, from my Father. Who did Jesus give that Authority to, the Apostles. They had the Authority, and they passed it down just like Jesus did. HE GAVE THEM THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. We do not have that power.

It was not passed down to us. We can not teach scripture, sure we can discuss and talk about it, But when we disagree and are not sure we MUST HAVE AUTHORITY to tell us who is right or wrong. THAT AUTHORITY IS THE CHURCH. THE PRIEST, And sometimes they will tell you im not sure on that question but i will get you the right answer. They go to the BISHOP and if all else fails the POPE.

You can not go through this world and teach scripture if you dont have the Power of the Holy Spirit to understand it. Why do you think Jesus talked to us in parables. He tells you we see things of this world, we could not begin to understand what he is saying. But he told the Apostles you have me to explain it to you, but i will not be here forever i will send to you the advocate THE HOLY SPIRIT. AND THATS THE LAST THING HE DID, HE LAID HIS HAND ON THEM AND SAID WHAT MY FATHER HAS GIVEN ME I NOW GIVE YOU. GO TEACH, MAKE DISCIPLES OF NATIONS. But that also is ignored. People claim they can teach, they dont need to be handed down this power. They can do it without the Holy Spirit. They know more then the Apostles and the Pope, They deny the Pope this Power that has been passed down to him. Even though it actually is WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.

 

[guanophore]

It would not be a sin, and it would not be a big deal, THATS THE POINT. If she did the Church would not deny it. But the point is she didnt thats the point.

And the bigger point is everything is not in the bible. And it tells you that in the bible. The Bible is not enough. NOT ALL IS WRITTEN. AGAIN ORAL TEACHINGS. But Just for asking ignores this.

Then she asks over and over what Traditon, I tell her over and over 2 thes 2:15 APOSTOLIC TRADITION, she wont listen. She goes by her own tradition the tradition the bible itself tells us to stay away from. Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of MEN.

Its all about AUTHORITY. Where does SS and JFAsking get their authority. They dont have any.

What did the Jews ask Jesus where did you get your Authority, What did Jesus say, from my Father. Who did Jesus give that Authority to, the Apostles. They had the Authority, and they passed it down just like Jesus did. HE GAVE THEM THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. We do not have that power.

It was not passed down to us. We can not teach scripture, sure we can discuss and talk about it, But when we disagree and are not sure we MUST HAVE AUTHORITY to tell us who is right or wrong. THAT AUTHORITY IS THE CHURCH. THE PRIEST, And sometimes they will tell you im not sure on that question but i will get you the right answer. They go to the BISHOP and if all else fails the POPE.

You can not go through this world and teach scripture if you dont have the Power of the Holy Spirit to understand it. Why do you think Jesus talked to us in parables. He tells you we see things of this world, we could not begin to understand what he is saying. But he told the Apostles you have me to explain it to you, but i will not be here forever i will send to you the advocate THE HOLY SPIRIT. AND THATS THE LAST THING HE DID, HE LAID HIS HAND ON THEM AND SAID WHAT MY FATHER HAS GIVEN ME I NOW GIVE YOU. GO TEACH, MAKE DISCIPLES OF NATIONS. But that also is ignored. People claim they can teach, they dont need to be handed down this power. They can do it without the Holy Spirit. They know more then the Apostles and the Pope, They deny the Pope this Power that has been passed down to him. Even though it actually is WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.

I agree with you, it would be much easier just to abandon the Teachings, and go along with the modern wave of status quo, and agree, “Oh, yes, Mary was breeding like a rabbit, that is why Jesus had 120 brethren present at Pentecost”.

But that would break the commandment to guard what has been entrusted to us. Abandonment of the truth does not glorify God, even if it placates the modern imagination.

I disagree with you about the teachers, though. I believe that they consider themselves moving in the power of the HS, and in fact, the Catechism teaches that the HS does use these ecclesiastical communities to draw people to Himself. Many do not know that there is such a think as Apostolic Succession, in order to reject it. They have been taught about the priesthood of all believers only, and don’t recognize ordination even when it is plainly there is Scripture. Those who preach for the most part I think do so in ignorance and with good intentions.

 

[KenEOTE]

It would not be a sin, and it would not be a big deal, THATS THE POINT. If she did the Church would not deny it. But the point is she didnt thats the point.

And the bigger point is everything is not in the bible. And it tells you that in the bible. The Bible is not enough. NOT ALL IS WRITTEN. AGAIN ORAL TEACHINGS. But Just for asking ignores this.

Then she asks over and over what Traditon, I tell her over and over 2 thes 2:15 APOSTOLIC TRADITION, she wont listen. She goes by her own tradition the tradition the bible itself tells us to stay away from. Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of MEN.

Its all about AUTHORITY. Where does SS and JFAsking get their authority. They dont have any.

What did the Jews ask Jesus where did you get your Authority, What did Jesus say, from my Father. Who did Jesus give that Authority to, the Apostles. They had the Authority, and they passed it down just like Jesus did. HE GAVE THEM THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. We do not have that power.

It was not passed down to us. We can not teach scripture, sure we can discuss and talk about it, But when we disagree and are not sure we MUST HAVE AUTHORITY to tell us who is right or wrong. THAT AUTHORITY IS THE CHURCH. THE PRIEST, And sometimes they will tell you im not sure on that question but i will get you the right answer. They go to the BISHOP and if all else fails the POPE.

You can not go through this world and teach scripture if you dont have the Power of the Holy Spirit to understand it. Why do you think Jesus talked to us in parables. He tells you we see things of this world, we could not begin to understand what he is saying. But he told the Apostles you have me to explain it to you, but i will not be here forever i will send to you the advocate THE HOLY SPIRIT. AND THATS THE LAST THING HE DID, HE LAID HIS HAND ON THEM AND SAID WHAT MY FATHER HAS GIVEN ME I NOW GIVE YOU. GO TEACH, MAKE DISCIPLES OF NATIONS. But that also is ignored. People claim they can teach, they dont need to be handed down this power. They can do it without the Holy Spirit. They know more then the Apostles and the Pope, They deny the Pope this Power that has been passed down to him. Even though it actually is WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.

Thanks for the post. I appreciate that. I agree with you, on that. I think some people on both sides seem to get too angry about ti, and it becomes an arguement not a discussion.

 

[rinnie]

Guanophore, Thank you for your post and dont get me wrong, I do agree with you that they dont understand about Apostolic succession, but its just so hard to prove your point and be conterminous.

Sometimes you have to just put the cards on the table to keep things within context. And you hate to dispute on one hand, and yet you must stick up for your faith.

Because it is impossble to fight scripture over scripture when you dont understand the true meaning, And thats what happens time after time. Scripture is taken so out of context its unreal. And please dont get me wrong we all do it at times. And must be corrected including myself. But we must be taught the truth. Not My truth, your truth, We both know it must be Gods truth. And that is why he left us the CHurch and Teachers so we can learn the truth.

And I am sure you and every other Catholic on this site that really understands scripture study and study to understand it. BUt you can read the bible over and over and never know what it really means until you are taught it.

And as much as we study there is always more to learn. Just like I tried to tell them that in that scripture we are taught it was considered cousins or near relatives. They say it makes no sense, How can it not? They make a claim and if we dispute it we are wrong. Even though we have Teachers that have researched this from the beginning of time, so we can know the truth. Again Authority. We dont like to be wrong either (who does) but this is not about who is right or wrong its about knowing the truth.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Your personal theology dismisses the Christian virtue of hope.

I strongly disagree. Indeed one of my favorite books is “Surprised by Hope” by N.T. Wright. I love his new and fresh look at eschatology & it really resonated with me. I think the problem and error of classical theologians is that they failed to understand the relationship between eschatology & soteriology.

I don’t expect a Catholic to agree with me on this. After all exploring theology is a new way is the domain of Protestants, not Catholics. Let’s face it – a “fresh look” of theology would require saying some ancient guy who lived a thousand years ago might have been wrong.

There’s been this argument in theology for centuries now – whether God elects corporately or individually. Certainly scripture seems to strongly side with the notion of particular election. However, that is problematic for free will theorists. Arminians have created an elaborate scheme whereby God elects by looking down the tunnel of time to see who will resist His will & who will obey. Calvinists will rightly point out that this has us electing ourselves. It really would mean (however one spins it) that it is up to us and not a unilateral selection made by God.

However, then hyper-Calvinists go the extra step and posit that all those who were not elected to salvation were predestined to damnation – which IMO is equally problematic. When we read verses like Luke 12:47-48 Jesus tells us that a person who does not know the masters will cannot be held accountable for knowing it. In other words there is a justice component that most classical theologians seem to skip over. There is accountability and culpability in a real sense that we can understand. The tribesman in some way off jungle who never heard of Jesus will not be treated as if he did.

So there’s not just two groups – the elect and the damned. There are those who never heard of Christ who neither resisted or assented. Moreover, an in depth study of the book of Revelation tells us judgment is not a one size fits all event. Indeed it is perfectly possible (if not probable) that people might be afforded an opportunity “after” they are resurrected to obey God (since at that point Jesus will be among us). When we read Revelation the chronology isn’t all that clear & there are many things left open.

Indeed at 1 Tim. 2:1-4 we are told to pray that all people will be saved.

However, when you say my theology destroys hope I assume either you’re saying we shouldn’t have confidence in our election or you assume I adhere to double predestination (which I would hope you see is not the case). While I acknowledge the elect cannot fail I also do not think the reprobate will all necessarily be damned either. We are selected for more than just salvation – we will be co-rulers with Christ during the millennial kingdom. I’ve never been one to take a dogmatic view of Revelation (as some very fundamental Protestants do); however, I also don’t ignore it. The RCC (and Lutherans) by in large (at least to my understanding) think most of the prophecies in Revelation (with the exception of the second coming) have already occurred – when clearly there hasn’t been any millennial kingdom (it’s pure fallacy to think so). When has the devil been caged? I certainly haven’t seen any period in history when evil has gone away (and I pretty sharp with regards to history – not that one really needs to know much about history to know evil has always been with us)?

OK – my two cents.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t expect a Catholic to agree with me on this. After all exploring theology is a new way is the domain of Protestants, not Catholics.

What is that supposed to mean? If you are talking about creating “different gospel”, then I agree.

Let’s face it – a “fresh look” of theology would require saying some ancient guy who lived a thousand years ago might have been wrong.

This is absurd. Catholics have been doing this from the very first decade of the church. How do you think doctrine developed at all??! Even Jesus explained to the theologians of His day why they were wrong.

. While I acknowledge the elect cannot fail I also do not think the reprobate will all necessarily be damned either. We are selected for more than just salvation – we will be co-rulers with Christ during the millennial kingdom. I’ve never been one to take a dogmatic view of Revelation (as some very fundamental Protestants do); however, I also don’t ignore it. The RCC (and Lutherans) by in large (at least to my understanding) think most of the prophecies in Revelation (with the exception of the second coming) have already occurred – when clearly there hasn’t been any millennial kingdom (it’s pure fallacy to think so). When has the devil been caged? I certainly haven’t seen any period in history when evil has gone away (and I pretty sharp with regards to history – not that one really needs to know much about history to know evil has always been with us)?

OK – my two cents.

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4165144]
Originally Posted by justasking4
On what grounds are you making this claim? Did Jesus ever warn anyone that if they do not believe in the perpetual virginity of His mother they would be reckoned with on Judgement day? Did the apostles teach this?

rinnie
No Jesus taught us to listen and stay true to the Church. The Catholic Church and to not let other come in and try to turn you from the truth.

That is why he left us the Apostles. To teach us, not to listen to people like you who try to turn us against the Church and twist scripture around to fit what they want it to say.

What do you do with the warnings of Scripture that warn that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many? How are you on guard yourself in the Catholic church if it claims to be incapable of erring in matters of faith (this by the way contradicts the Scripture)?

But so in a way yes, Jesus did teach us that, Because our Apostles handed down the teachings from day one. They said She was a Virgin, remained a Virgin, and never had other children.

This is a good example of where the facts of Scripture do not support the perpetual virginity doctrine. There are just to many places in Scripture where it is said Jesus had blood brothers via His mother Mary. To say that she did not have children requires some serious distortions of the Scriptures to support this.

That came from the Apostles, again how can you rely on the Church for Cannon of Scripture, and then turn around and call them liars.

Since the church is composed of fallen men who can and have erred would require all of us to be on guard on what any church may proclaim. Just because the church of the 4th century got the canon of the NT right does not mean automatically they got everything else right. We know they have not on this topic of discussion.

 

[rinnie]

SS To day some ancient guy a thousand years ago may have been wrong, are you then indeed saying that the Gospel are not the inspired words of Christ? Or are you saying that they did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit to interpret them. I dont understand what you mean here?

 

[rinnie]

Okay Let me get this right. The Church is made up of fallen men, but now HOLD ON we are going to believe these fallen men on Cannon of Scripture, but thats it, This statement is insane.

How could anyone believe that Fallen Men has anything to do with the Gospel of Our Lord. (just this one time).

And God said do not let People come and take you away from his church. And if we must be on guard. we guard ourself on Gods words the CC will prevail.

And again where show me where it says plain as day that Jesus had BLOOD brothers via the Blessed Mother. PLEASE show me. All you show me is you taking scripture out of context over and over again. You show me Proof you say you have. All you have is what you think is says. I and the Catholic Church disagree with YOU. Where is your authority to define scripture?

And how can you even believe the Bible is you feel its written by Fallen Men? Thats the one that blows my mind.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4166095]Okay Let me get this right. The Church is made up of fallen men, but now HOLD ON we are going to believe these fallen men on Cannon of Scripture, but thats it, This statement is insane.

I would think most catholics here would not disagree with me on this.

How could anyone believe that Fallen Men has anything to do with the Gospel of Our Lord. (just this one time).

The Lord Jesus used fallen men. He appointed them His apostles and used them as the foundation for the church. See Ephesians 2:20.

And God said do not let People come and take you away from his church. And if we must be on guard. we guard ourself on Gods words the CC will prevail.

Where is this from?

And again where show me where it says plain as day that Jesus had BLOOD brothers via the Blessed Mother. PLEASE show me. All you show me is you taking scripture out of context over and over again. You show me Proof you say you have. All you have is what you think is says. I and the Catholic Church disagree with YOU.

I know you disagree with me. However you are not able to refute the passages i have used to show clearly Mary had her own children. Rather your defense is that the church says she did not have children and no amount of facts will change your mind.

Where is your authority to define scripture?

Why is an appeal to authority necessary here if we know what the verses of Scripture show that she did indeed have her own children?

And how can you even believe the Bible is you feel its written by Fallen Men? Thats the one that blows my mind.

I believe it for a number of reasons. In regards to fallen men writing it that would be a problem if they were truly its source. However, the inspiration of the Scriptures is rooted in the character of God Himself. That is more than sufficent to overcome any of man’s limitations.