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

[justasking4]

Good Fella;4209343]The truth is that Catholics aren’t true to what you personally choose to believe through your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures.
Where has your church infallilbly interpreted Matthew 13:55-56 and John 7:5 to mean cousins or relative and not blood brothers? You are going to need an offical interpretation from the church itself to be able to say i have misunderstood and misinterpreted these passages. Or is this just your own private interpretation?

The Holy Spirit has preserved the Church free from error - as promised by Christ - in all her official doctrines and dogmas and the canon of Scripture.

There is no such promise by Christ to the church. I wish there was.

The Bible doesn’t instruct us which books belong in the canon.

True, but we put a canon together of all the books we consider inspired and inerrant Word of God.

The books we have in the Bible have been accepted by the Church because they are true to Tradition.

What do you mean by Tradition here?

The Church believed in and taught the doctrine of Mary Ever-Virgin for centuries before the canon of scripture was made. This traditional awareness is expressed in Luke 1, 34.

Even if the church in the early centures taught this it does not mean that the apostles taught this. We know from Scripture that it mentions Mary’s children and Jesus’ brothers. If these kinds of things were not mentioned then you might have a leg to stand on.

 

[rinnie]

justforasking4 the Church claims that the Apostles were infallible in scripture by the Power of the Holy Spirit, Do you deny this, Quite simple do you agree with the CHurch or do you not on this statement? Again just in case we get our wires crossed here, Do you agree with the Church that the Apostles we given the Gift of the Holy Spirit? And if you do, when and how did they receive this gift? Sorry this question only for JFA4.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4212388]
justforasking4 the Church claims that the Apostles were infallible in scripture by the Power of the Holy Spirit, Do you deny this, Quite simple do you agree with the CHurch or do you not on this statement?

Depends what you mean by infallible. Peter was rebuked by Paul for erring. This tells me that the apostles could be wrong at times.

Again just in case we get our wires crossed here, Do you agree with the Church that the Apostles we given the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

What exactly is this gift that you are referring to?
I do believe that Christ Himself did make some of His disciples Apostles and gave them certain powers and authority that was not given to others.

And if you do, when and how did they receive this gift? Sorry this question only for JFA4

.

There is no formal event when certain disciples were made into Apostles. However we do see in Acts individual disciples i.e. apostles taking leadership roles in the NT church period. Peter and Paul dominate.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Trying to address the OP’s original question, whose fallout has wandered pretty far afield: I think it entirely possible that our Lord had biological half brothers, but no, I can’t prove it. The Catholic posters in this forum have shown repeatedly that the Gospels can be interpreted, parsed, and looked at from neck-punishing angles in a way that leaves an opening that He didn’t have half-brothers, and that’s fine–maybe He didn’t. I simply belong to the “if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck” school, and the OP is not obliged to join me there.

 

[rinnie]

Depends what you mean by infallible. Peter was rebuked by Paul for erring. This tells me that the apostles could be wrong at times.

What exactly is this gift that you are referring to?
I do believe that Christ Himself did make some of His disciples Apostles and gave them certain powers and authority that was not given to others.

.

There is no formal event when certain disciples were made into Apostles. However we do see in Acts individual disciples i.e. apostles taking leadership roles in the NT church period. Peter and Paul dominate.

 

[rinnie]

Oh Geez…I am lost for words.

Okay one more time justfor asking what does this mean

JESUS SAID TO THE TWELVE HE WHO RECEIVES YOU RECEIVES ME.

WHERE DOES IT SAY HE SAID IT TO CERTAIN ONES, WAS THERE OR WAS THERE NOT TWELVE APOSTLES. DID JESUS NOT STATE TWELVE.

Just for asking are you just pulling my chain now, or are you really serious with those responses you gave me.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4213128]Oh Geez…I am lost for words.

Okay one more time justfor asking what does this mean

JESUS SAID TO THE TWELVE HE WHO RECEIVES YOU RECEIVES ME.

Are you referring to Matthew 10:40?

WHERE DOES IT SAY HE SAID IT TO CERTAIN ONES, WAS THERE OR WAS THERE NOT TWELVE APOSTLES. DID JESUS NOT STATE TWELVE.

Can you give me the specific passage you are referring to?

Just for asking are you just pulling my chain now, or are you really serious with those responses you gave me.

i’m very serious and i’m not pulling your chain. Keep in mind that this kind of commuication via threads is limited and easy to misunderstand.

 

[rinnie]

Are you referring to Matthew 10:40?

Can you give me the specific passage you are referring to?

i’m very serious and i’m not pulling your chain. Keep in mind that this kind of commuication via threads is limited and easy to misunderstand.

Lets start with Matt. 10: 1-40 then you can go to Mark 3 :13-19 then you can move on to luke 9:1-6 then acts 6:1-7

The magic number there seems to be twelve, does it not. I see where he gave all of the Apostles the AUTHORITY to cast out devils. proclaim his message, Again I see twelve. Even Judas.

 

[SIA]

The only reasonable perspective. I’m not sure whether the ingenuous Fundamentalist misperception should make one want to or :crying: .

But in any case you deserve a round of :clapping: for your expertise in :juggle: .

PAX :tiphat:

Nice work with the icons. The problem is that you ignore the obvious not because your mind doesn’t know it, but because you are told to and have been told to over and over again. I got out; thank GOD.

 

[Matariel]

Nice work with the icons. The problem is that you ignore the obvious not because your mind doesn’t know it, but because you are told to and have been told to over and over again. I got out; thank GOD.

And I got in, Thank GOD.

 

[Good_Fella]

Nice work with the icons. The problem is that you ignore the obvious not because your mind doesn’t know it, but because you are told to and have been told to over and over again. I got out; thank GOD.

Leaving the Church founded by Christ and making yourself out to be a spiritual orphan is nothing to thank God for. :nope:

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.” :yup:
Cardinal John H. Newman

 

[SIA]

Leaving the Church founded by Christ and making yourself out to be a spiritual orphan is nothing to thank God for. :nope:

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.” :yup:
Cardinal John H. Newman

I don’t need your sympathy or sarchasm. I have Christ and he has me and now I know that there is nothing between us to get in the way.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by Good Fella
The only reasonable perspective. I’m not sure whether the ingenuous Fundamentalist misperception should make one want to or .

But in any case you deserve a round of for your expertise in .

PAX
SIA
Nice work with the icons. The problem is that you ignore the obvious not because your mind doesn’t know it, but because you are told to and have been told to over and over again. I got out; thank GOD.

Before it can be said that the “ingenuous Fundamentalist” can be shown to be wrong in his or her’ interpretation the Catholic would need to show where and how the Catholic church has infallibly interpreted these verses to mean what those who believe Mary never had her children. Where for example has the church has offically interpreted Matthew 13:55-56 the word “brother” to mean cousin or relative?
If this cannot be shown it looks like we have some “private interpretations” going on. And that cannot be…View attachment 4164

 

[guanophore]

Before it can be said that the “ingenuous Fundamentalist” can be shown to be wrong in his or her’ interpretation the Catholic would need to show where and how the Catholic church has infallibly interpreted these verses to mean what those who believe Mary never had her children.

No, ja4, this is not the case. We receive the gospel from Jesus Himself. This is the Source of our faith. Jesus did not make an infallible interpretation of the whole bible. This is not necessary to receive the Truth.

What makes you disingenuous is that you make statements like this, when you have already demonstrated that the accomplishment of this task makes absolutely no impression upon you whatsoever. You have rejected the infallible interpretations of the verses with which this has already been done because you reject the Apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church.

Where for example has the church has offically interpreted Matthew 13:55-56 the word “brother” to mean cousin or relative?
If this cannot be shown it looks like we have some “private interpretations” going on. And that cannot be…

I suppose, if heretical understandings of this continue to persist and lead people astray into error, it will be possible that it may be done in the future. However, as I said, that will not change your thinking at all, will it?

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

Where for example has the church has offically interpreted Matthew 13:55-56 the word “brother” to mean cousin or relative?
If this cannot be shown it looks like we have some “private interpretations” going on. And that cannot be…

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

**Mary - “ever-virgin” **

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

154 Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880.
155 LG 57.
156 Cf. LG 52.
157 Cf. Mk 3:31-35; 6:3; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19.
158 Mt 13:55; 28:1; cf. Mt 27:56.
159 Cf. Gen 13:8; 14:16; 29:15; etc.
160 LG 63; cf. Jn 19:26-27; Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17.

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t need your sympathy or sarchasm. I have Christ and he has me and now I know that there is nothing between us to get in the way.

“Not everyone who says, ‘Lord ! Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[KenEOTE]

“Not everyone who says, ‘Lord ! Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

True… that goes for both Catholics and Protestants. Not sure what it has to do with Jesus having siblings or not. I love this thread though so spirited.

 

[rinnie]

Justforasking, Again I am going to ask you this question, Do you believe in Cannon of Scripture. You either do or you dont, You cant pick and choose now what is true and what isnt. guanophore told you there are over 400 documents claiming to be inspired scripture.

Now how can you possibly believe that the Church would turn around and let inspired words of Chirst be in the bible, and then turn around and teach us differently with the oral and written letters. Everything that the Catholic Church teaches has the same authority and is as Inspired as any word in the bible. Just because it wasnt in the bible makes no difference. This teaching has been going on for hundreds of years.

Again how could you possibly believe that as you stated that they got the bible right, but thats it. If you really believe they could lie to us about the oral teachings, what makes you think they would not lie to you then? I can’t comprehend this way of thinking.

 

[Good_Fella]

True… that goes for both Catholics and Protestants. Not sure what it has to do with Jesus having siblings or not. I love this thread though so spirited.

Allow me to enlighten you then. It’s presumptuous of Christians to be confident in their salvation, because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour, yet at the same time offend and dishonour their Lord’s mother by publicly contesting her chastity and sinlessness. Sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary amount to sins committed against the Holy Spirit, for such sins are basically a contestation of divine truth as explicitly revealed through the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Non-Catholics who personally reject the Church’s Marian dogmas out of invincible ignorance but keep their disbeliefs private are exempt from this position of guilt.

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
John 9, 41

The greatest sin is that of pride, in this case religious pride. It is this pride that evokes the indifference non-Catholic Christians have toward the Mother of God to the extent that they never once question whether they are actually wrong in their convictions and whether they are actually offending Mary and hurting her feelings in their public crusades. If the sin we commit is directly against God or another human being, it means the same thing: lovelessness toward the other person.

Heaven holds no place for those who cannot love, especially those who refuse to love Mary through the exercise of their will by neglecting how she might feel and take offence at their slanderous and irreverent public remarks: “Mary was a sinner;” (Only God knows who is a sinner.) “Mary had sex with Joseph and never made a personal vow of chastity before God;” (How would they know Mary’s heart in her personal relationship with the Father?) “Mary was a bondslave;” she had no choice in becoming the mother of Jesus;" (God abused her free will.) “Mary was just an incubator used by God” (I’m sure God is offended at how Christians can presume to underestimate his love, mercy, and justice with such a vulgar remark.); “Jesus rebuked Mary in public;” (In otherwords, he dishonoured her.) “The scriptures say very little of Mary; she is practically a non-entity;” (Her ‘Fiat’, willed and respected by God, contributed to our salvation.) “Her body lies corrupted somewhere in an unmarked grave.” (I doubt Jesus would let that happen. He loves his mother with a perfect divine love and he respects the body which bore him, whose flesh and blood - that which was poured out for our salvation - he assumed.) (etc.)

Being so sure of oneself in this capacity against the infallible teachings of the Church and thereby the Spirit of the Word of God is an unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit, for it is usually characterized by unrepentance as it was with the religious elders who opposed Jesus in their outright, insidious self-complacency. And it’s a sin against the Immaculate Heart of Mary on account of the cold indifference toward her feelings and her privileged position with God.

PAX

 

[KenEOTE]

Allow me to enlighten you then. It’s presumptuous of Christians to be confident in their salvation, because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour, yet at the same time offend and dishonour their Lord’s mother by publicly contesting her chastity and sinlessness. Sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary amount to sins committed against the Holy Spirit, for such sins are basically a contestation of divine truth as explicitly revealed through the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Christ. Non-Catholics who personally reject the Church’s Marian dogmas out of invincible ignorance but keep their disbeliefs private are exempt from this position of guilt.

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
John 9, 41

The greatest sin is that of pride, in this case religious pride. It is this pride that evokes the indifference non-Catholic Christians have toward the Mother of God to the extent that they never once question whether they are actually wrong in their convictions and whether they are actually offending Mary and hurting her feelings in their public crusades. If the sin we commit is directly against God or another human being, it means the same thing: lovelessness toward the other person.

Heaven holds no place for those who cannot love, especially those who refuse to love Mary through the exercise of their will by neglecting how she might feel and take offence at their slanderous and irreverent public remarks: “Mary was a sinner;” (Only God knows who is a sinner.) “Mary had sex with Joseph and never made a personal vow of chastity before God;” (How would they know Mary’s heart in her personal relationship with the Father?) “Mary was a bondslave;” she had no choice in becoming the mother of Jesus;" (God abused her free will.) “Mary was just an incubator used by God” (I’m sure God is offended at how Christians can presume to underestimate his love, mercy, and justice with such a vulgar remark.); “Jesus rebuked Mary in public;” (In otherwords, he dishonoured her.) “The scriptures say very little of Mary; she is practically a non-entity;” (Her ‘Fiat’, willed and respected by God, contributed to our salvation.) “Her body lies corrupted somewhere in an unmarked grave.” (I doubt Jesus would let that happen. He loves his mother with a perfect divine love and he respects the body which bore him, whose flesh and blood - that which was poured out for our salvation - he assumed.) (etc.)

Being so sure of oneself in this capacity against the infallible teachings of the Church and thereby the Spirit of the Word of God is an unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit, for it is usually characterized by unrepentance as it was with the religious elders who opposed Jesus in their outright, insidious self-complacency. And it’s a sin against the Immaculate Heart of Mary on account of the cold indifference toward her feelings and her privileged position with God.

PAX

Please do not assume you have enlightened me at all. Unless you are the Holy Spirit you do not have the ability to enlighten anyone. You can provide your opinion but that is not enlightenment that is just sharing your opinion.

I stand by what I said there will be both Catholics and Protestants who will cry out Lord Lord and he will not know them.

So it s dishonoring to think that Mary loved Joseph and that they were one in marriage and had other children. I don’t see that as dishonoring. They are not saying she was a prostitute they are saying that she was in a loving marriage. Unless you are saying the act of making love to your spouse and having children is dishonoring in some way. I don’t think Mary takes offense at that at all. If she did she would be sinning because you can only be offended by someone if you have pride. Pride is a sin. I have never met a protestant who hated Mary or thought ill of her. They respect her and Joseph. You have made sweeping judgments in your post.

You are right the greatest sin is pride. I have seen a lot of Pride coming from both sides on this argument.

There is no true Proof that Mary had Children, there is also no real proof that she did not. I am saying physical evidence not oral tradition. You can argue both sides and quote verses and what it meant in Greek or Hebrew it will never end and neither side is going to budge on it.

The Humble approach would be thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut I will study that and pray about it and seek God’s guidance.