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

[StevenFrancis]

Im just going by this thread as well as the general debate world wide. There doesnt seem to be any sort of agreement made, which is why I say it still seems as though the jury is still out.

General debate world wide? Hmmm. Not among Christians. It was settled 1,359 years ago by the Lateran council.

The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. which declared that: “She [Mary] conceived without seed, of the Holy Spirit…and without injury brought him [Jesus] forth…and after birth preserved her virginity inviolate”.

And this was a firming up of some assumptions that were still in debate between the council of ephesus in 431 and the Lateran council in 649. After this declaration, I am not aware of it being a debate in Christianity.

Indeed, Martin Luther, the founder of the reformation held to her perpetual virginity. He was not entirely sure about her assumption, but of Her perpetual virginity he had not doubt.

The simple fact is, Jesus of Nazareth did NOT have blood siblings.

There is some possibility brought forth lately that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage. This would indeed be unimportant to salvation history. As would the existence of “cousins” which is the more likely intent of the authors based on context and language analysis of the time.

Once again, the importance of it all is to leave no wiggle room to squeeze out of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus was, is, and will be God, as the Son, and Word made flesh. He was perfect, and remained so. His chosen vessel/arc was perfect and remained so.

Christ was WAY more than his “message”.

So…a person can believe, or not believe. That is their prerogotive through the auspices of free will and the formation of conscience. But in the light of Christian doctrine, this is not a question, or point of debate, and hasn’t been for well over a millenium. Nor, is Christianity subject to moral relativism, or the American concept of democracy. Christianity holds to singular truth in a few areas. Even if the majority of Catholics disagreed, it would not change the truth.

This is what frustrates people in general, including huge numbers of Christians, and even fair sized numbers of Catholics. In a world of relativism gone wild, it’s hard for our minds to get around natural and universal truth. Where we can’t petition Senate or Parliament to re-examine and change the law to keep up with society. It is the position of the Church that some things are what they are, regardless of cultural whim and changing tides of popular thought.

I am only just now starting to grasp this fully. It really came as quite a surprise to me. I didn’t like the idea when I first started thinking about it. Now, I am seeing how important it is. Just checking out a few threads around here, makes me quite grateful to have a magesterium. I also had to realize that it is not a threat to the intellect or the ego. The challenge now changes from overt, (and frankly ineffectual), intellectual rebellion, to the studious pursuit of what makes a given thing true. Of grappling with what makes up a dogma. Of really trying to understand the axioms. Without a full grasp of the original process and the arguments leading to dogma, it is difficult to frame the result within a 21st century context which can be as meaningful now, as it was then. To learn to step out of the flow of time periodically to examine the mileposts which are stationary and inflexable, even as we whiz by them on our highway forward into the unknown.

I find the grounding stability of orthodoxy to be of supreme comfort in this day and age of changing winds.

Peace to you,

Steven

 

[NDfan]

It can clearly be showned that the person most Identified as the “brother of Jesus”, James, is not the brother of Jesus, so the arguement should and here; why doesnt it?

1. James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21)
2. James, the Apostle and the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3).

Well Jimmy James the son of Zebedee, brother of John and killed by Herod certainly wasn’t the Lord’s brother. Then there’s James son of Alphaeus who is usually identified as such as in (Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, and Acts 1). He’s also believed but can’t be proven to be James the younger and also son of a certain Mary as identified in (Matthew 27, Mark 15 & 16 & Luke 24). Also Levi is called son of Alphaeus leaving us to wonder if Matthew and this particular James could have been brothers. But he’s probably not the brother of the Lord either.

Now Peter escapes from jail after James was killed by Herod and goes to John’s house whom we also know as Mark who wrote the Gospel. Peter tells them to tell James who is the leader of the church in Jerusalem and the brothers that he is alive. So by your assertion the James leading the church in Jerusalem is son of Alphaeus. Yet he is never addressed this way. Paul tells us that this James is the Lord’s brother in Galatians. James who heads the church in Jerusalem was never referred to as James son of Alphaeus, or James the younger. Also the James who heads the church in Jerusalem appears to be a leader and some sort of decision-maker. James son of Alphaeus is just never talked about this way and as a point of reference we know really nothing about this James son of Alphaeus.

Also by your assertion this James son of Alphaeus would have to be the author of the Epistle of James since James brother of John was already dead. Then there’s the James who is identified as Jude’s brother in Jude’s letter. But hmm we also know Jesus had brothers named Jude and James. But James son of Alphaeus is never identified as having a brother named Jude although as referenced above we see maybe Levi/Matthew could have been his brother. Given that James son of Zebedee is so often identified as James brother of John it doesn’t make sense that James son of Alphaeus is not referenced the same way with regard to a brother whether it be Jude or Levi/Matthew.

Josephus identifies a James as the brother of Jesus in his antiquities book 20 chapter 9 writing on the death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 AD. Josephus doesn’t call James the son of Alpheus either.

So to say there are only 2 James is just completely inaccurate. The epistle of James has always been attributed to James the Lord’s brother. And James never identifies himself as son of Alphaeus in his letter. So then no matter how you slice it Jimmy you just can’t prove there are only 2 James and therefore cannot prove that James could not have been Jesus brother :nope:

PEACE brother

 

[Elric]

Elric,

First and foremost Jesus had no siblings and they will never find proof that he did.

It was a hypothetical statement, an attempt to put things into perspective.

You miss my point, so let me attempt to be more clear…

No I got your point, a lot of it is irrelevent to the topic. Case in point; the virgin birth part you constantly bring up. That has nothing to do with the topic of Jesus having siblings (well actually brothers, but I find that to be a bit sexist).

You still seem to have this notion that I think that Jesus did have siblings, even though I have stated that isnt the case. That is kind of frustrating.

You also seem unwilling to answer the questions I have asked (which are very relevent to the topic), the only thing that was even close to an answer that you gave was that it might change his teachings/message. I am still trying to figure out how exactly his teachings/message would change.

 

[Elric]

General debate world wide? Hmmm. Not among Christians. It was settled 1,359 years ago by the Lateran council.

Are you trying to suggest that there is no debate?

What is your defination of “christian”?

The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. which declared that: “She [Mary] conceived without seed, of the Holy Spirit…and without injury brought him [Jesus] forth…and after birth preserved her virginity inviolate”.

And this was a firming up of some assumptions that were still in debate between the council of ephesus in 431 and the Lateran council in 649.

What exactly did they base their declaration on?

What proof was their declaration based on (around 600 years after the fact)?

If the debate started in 431 and ended 2 centuries later, it doesnt really sound like they had anything concrete at all. Heck even having a debate about the issue and the term “debate” doesnt sound like they knew for sure.

Personally, I think that they would have been better off not making any statement on the virginity of Mary. Except of course that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Indeed, Martin Luther, the founder of the reformation held to her perpetual virginity. He was not entirely sure about her assumption, but of Her perpetual virginity he had not doubt.

Because he knew her personally and had actually asked her. What he believed is pretty much irrelevent, he kept other teaching from the chuch as well.

The simple fact is, Jesus of Nazareth did NOT have blood siblings.

Im sorry but that is not actually fact, its an assumption and a belief. There is nothing concrete to state either way.

Until someone finds something concrete, then both schools of thought will remain assumptions only (I really wish that someone does find some definate proof that states one way or the other for certain).

There is some possibility brought forth lately that Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage. This would indeed be unimportant to salvation history. As would the existence of “cousins” which is the more likely intent of the authors based on context and language analysis of the time.

Yeah I dont go for the previous marriage for Joseph idea.

Would Jesus having genetic siblings change anything?

That is the most vital question in this whole issue, would it matter if he did?

Once again, the importance of it all is to leave no wiggle room to squeeze out of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus was, is, and will be God, as the Son, and Word made flesh. He was perfect, and remained so. His chosen vessel/arc was perfect and remained so.

Christ was WAY more than his “message”.

Why put message like that?

It seems a bit odd.

So what you are suggesting is that Christ wouldnt be Christ if he had siblings. He would not be perfect, the Son, the word made flesh ect if he had siblings.

So…a person can believe, or not believe. That is their prerogotive through the auspices of free will and the formation of conscience. But in the light of Christian doctrine, this is not a question, or point of debate, and hasn’t been for well over a millenium. Nor, is Christianity subject to moral relativism, or the American concept of democracy. Christianity holds to singular truth in a few areas. Even if the majority of Catholics disagreed, it would not change the truth.

Mate, it took 200 years for men to make a declaration on the issue and that was around 600 years after the fact. Making a declaration like that would need some proof that was beyond contesting and would remove all doubt, I dont believe that they have/had that sort of proof going by when they made the call and how long it took them. That has nothing to do with democracy or anything else.

Its not asking people to vote on it, its a matter of being able to support your statements.

This is what frustrates people in general, including huge numbers of Christians, and even fair sized numbers of Catholics. In a world of relativism gone wild, it’s hard for our minds to get around natural and universal truth. Where we can’t petition Senate or Parliament to re-examine and change the law to keep up with society. It is the position of the Church that some things are what they are, regardless of cultural whim and changing tides of popular thought.

They shouldnt get frustrated, they should remember that questioning things is very important. Its how we find God.

The problem is that people today no longer believe what they are told, they want proof that what is said is true. This does make it difficult for churches because they are used to their word/authority being unquestionable, but its no longer the case.

I am only just now starting to grasp this fully. It really came as quite a surprise to me. I didn’t like the idea when I first started thinking about it. Now, I am seeing how important it is. Just checking out a few threads around here, makes me quite grateful to have a magesterium. Without a full grasp of the original process and the arguments leading to dogma, it is difficult to frame the result within a 21st century context which can be as meaningful now, as it was then. To learn to step out of the flow of time periodically to examine the mileposts which are stationary and inflexable, even as we whiz by them on our highway forward into the unknown.

I find the grounding stability of orthodoxy to be of supreme comfort in this day and age of changing winds.

Peace to you,

Steven

I prefer to have things supported by evidence, which is why I wont say that Jesus had siblings or not. I simply dont know.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,All

Its amazing how the authority of the one true church, is put to task through the centuries ! Especially during the reformation when private interpertation became the word !

Think please : If Jesus had brothers and sisters doesn’t logic tell you they woud have been at the foot of the cross with their Mother, its either that or they were a very disfunctional family, if in fact there were other siblings they must have disliked there Mother as well as Jesus, this does not add up !

The Cathoic Church has the correct exegesis and no argument in the world will change that.

Peace,OneNow1:twocents:

 

[planter654]

Your profile lists you as Catholic, yet you deny the Blessed Virgin’s perpetual virginity?

Say it isn’t so!

Paul

Here we go again. I was understanding when Mary was born, she was born “without orginal sin” thus she was a virgin pure spirtiually and Yes I am a Catholic!

The Jews also believed that for it is written in their Torah. But because of translation changing from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English “woman was changed to virgin”.

I know I will get flax, but this is what I have read on this web site by a Jewish believer.

Yes, I believe Jesus could have brothers and sister—because it is written, that Joseph did not know her till-------

That to me is not my concern whether our Blessed Mother did have children with her husband Joseph or not! they were married!
God’s commandments to “multiply and be fruitful and cultivate the earth”

God Bless

 

[Good_Fella]

Here we go again. I was understanding when Mary was born, she was born “without orginal sin” thus she was a virgin pure spirtiually and Yes I am a Catholic!

The Jews also believed that for it is written in their Torah. But because of translation changing from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English “woman was changed to virgin”.

I know I will get flax, but this is what I have read on this web site by a Jewish believer.

Yes, I believe Jesus could have brothers and sister—because it is written, that Joseph did not know her till-------

That to me is not my concern whether our Blessed Mother did have children with her husband Joseph or not! they were married!
God’s commandments to “multiply and be fruitful and cultivate the earth”

God Bless

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the Church’s second Marian dogma, declared and defined under ‘anathema’ in the third canon of the Lateran Synod of 649 under Pope Martin 1.

“If anyone does not confess that the holy and ever-Virgin and immaculate Mary did not conceive without seed by the power of the Holy Spirit the very Word of God, give birth to him without corruption, thereafter that very virginity remaining ever integral, let him be anathema.”

Almost a century earlier, the Council of Constantinople ll (553-554) twice referred to Mary as “ever-Virgin”. The Council of Trent and many other councils, including Vatican ll, affirm Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (‘Ineffabilis Deus’, of Pope Pius lX: 1854) and the Assumption ('Munificentisimus Deus, of Pope Pius Xll: 1950) refer to Mary as “ever-Virgin”.

Church Fathers have taught that Mary remained a virgin throughout her entire life: Athanasius, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Basil, Isidore, and Ildefonsus. The contrary doctrine is called “madness” by Origen, “sacrilege” by Ambrose, 'heresy" by Augustine, and “perfidy of the Jews” by Pope Siricius. [See Catholic Encyclopedia].

The conjunction “until” (eos) contained in Matthew 1, 25 can refer to either the time before or after the birth of Jesus. The author is strictly concerned with the time before Jesus was born, emphasizing that the birth of Christ was in fact virginal in accordance with the veiled prophecy of Isaiah 7, 14. Matthew uses the conjunction ‘eos’ on more than one occasion in his gospel with reference to the time preceding an event. For instance, “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” [Mt 28, 20]. Let us not presume that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of time. So let us not presume that Mary was no longer a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. At any rate, Church doctrines are not based on grammatical particles and exponents. It’s mostly - if not all - about theology, not linguistics.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Elric]

Hi,All

Its amazing how the authority of the one true church, is put to task through the centuries ! Especially during the reformation when private interpertation became the word !

Think please : If Jesus had brothers and sisters doesn’t logic tell you they woud have been at the foot of the cross with their Mother, its either that or they were a very disfunctional family, if in fact there were other siblings they must have disliked there Mother as well as Jesus, this does not add up !

That is a valid point you raise, one of many that have been raised. Also where was Joseph during all this?

I dont think that he would miss this either.

The Cathoic Church has the correct exegesis and no argument in the world will change that.

Peace,OneNow1:twocents:

I dont think that is the right way to go about it, that shows a narrow mind rather than an open mind.

 

[Good_Fella]

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

I voted “No”. There is ample theological “proof” that Jesus had no siblings. Allow me to present one piece of “evidence”.

God further said to Abraham: " As for your wife Sarai, do not call her Sarai; her name shall be Sarah. I will bless her, and I will give you a son by her. Him also will I bless; he shall give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples shall issue from him. Abraham prostrated himself and laughed as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to man who is a hundred years old? Or can Sarah give birth at ninety?”…God replied: “Nevertheless, your wife Sarah is to bear a son, and YOU SHALL CALL HIM ISAAC.”
{Genesis 17,15-19}

And coming to her he said, “Hail, full of grace!” The Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and YOU SHALL CALL HIM JESUS. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. But Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
{Luke 1, 28-35}

Sarah is referred to only once in the reading of the liturgy for Masses in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is in the Mass called ‘The Blessed Virgin Mary, Chosen Daughter of Israel’. Reference to Sarah points to Mary’s continuity in the New Covenant with the great Matriarch of Israel, Sarah, who through faith overcame barrenness; not unlike Mary who had also conceived a child miraculously because of her faith in God [Gen 18, 14; Lk 1, 35, 37-38]. Sarah prefigures Mary, a type of Matriarch of the New Covenant. Isaac was born of the free woman of promise, Sarah, by the gracious intervention of God. He was the only son of Abraham and Sarah, rightfully entitled to his inheritance: a great nation. Isaac became the promised father of Israel (Jacob). Mary was the free woman of promise who miraculously conceived and bore her only son Jesus, who was prefigured by Isaac, the first born among many brethren [Rom 8, 29].

Both Sarah and Mary were prepared by God to bear an only son consecrated to Him. Both mothers were denied the liberty to name their sons, for they rightfully belonged to God. And neither mothers bore children in bondage. Isaac was not born in slavery, as his step-brother Ishmael was being born of Abraham and Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant and concubine of Abraham. Not unlike the Matriarch Sarah, Mary bore no children in the bondage of slavery to sin. Hence, Isaac, who prefigured Christ, was the only child of Sarah, the Matriarch of Israel; Mary, who was prefigured by Sarah, bore an only son and child of hers as the Matriarch of the New Israel: Mother of the Church. It was not fitting in God’s plan that Sarah and Mary should have other children to challenge the rightful heirs. And so Sarah was barren and Mary chose to be ever-virgin by the grace of God.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
{Song of Songs 4, 12}

He said to me: "This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened by anyone to enter by it; since the Lord God of Israel has entered by it, it shall remain closed. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.
{Ezekiel 44, 2-3}

“Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.”
St. Basil ( A.D. 396)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[bengal_fan]

no one can prove either side so this thread is pointless.

 

[StevenFrancis]

PART ONE OF THREE

Dear Elric:

I will endeavor to answer some of your questions below, but before even getting started with that, I want to apologize for the tone of the message from which you extracted all my quotes. I am sometimes given to writing and speaking in a fashion that is uncharitable, and when I do this, (usually as a result of failing to pray before posting), it comes off as contentious, and even pompous. This is something I am working on, and I am truly sorry that my post inflicted this undesirable tone. In addition, I have been frustrated lately at the lack of faith in the world, and I’m afraid a little bit of that frustration found it’s way into my ramblings. Here then, are what I hope are civil, and charitable responses to your last post to me:

Are you trying to suggest that there is no debate?

In my faith and belief, indeed, I am suggesting there is no debate. Not among the fully faithful to the Lord. I believe the Church, the Magesterium, the Traditions of our Lord and his followers, the Church fathers, and of course the scriptures. When the Church declares a dogma, it is after all sides of an argument, question, heresy etc. have been looked at, and examined carefully. It is not done lightly. It has only been done a few times in history, and it is always in the interest of further discovering and defining the divinity and importance of who/what the Son is/was. I have full faith in the chain of people that Jesus set in motion and put in charge of his teaching, and gave his authority to. I remember our Lord’s words to his Apostle Thomas: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” I decided a very short while ago I would no longer be a type of Thomas regarding The Church.

What is your defination of “christian”?

A disciple and follower of Jesus Christ. Not simply by self-identification as such, but by faith in the teachings, traditions, and, and more important in the living out of the Gospels. A sincere attempt at the imitation of Christ. And while I believe there is only one Church created by Christ, and I believe that it will be the one Church in the fullness of time, it is God who determines who is a Christian. Not ourselves. The best bet, then, is to love our fellow man more than we love ourselves, and to love the Lord God more than any person, place or thing. The rest will fall into place on it’s own.

What exactly did they base their declaration on?

The teachings and traditions of Jesus, Holy Scripture, and the teachings of His Apostles and the Church Fathers down through history.

What proof was their declaration based on (around 600 years after the fact)?

It is not proof in the sense that comes from scientific experiment. It is faith in the understanding of the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, who were left with the Holy Spirit as their advocate, and sent out to teach the nations.

 

[StevenFrancis]

PART TWO OF THREE

If the debate started in 431 and ended 2 centuries later, it doesnt really sound like they had anything concrete at all. Heck even having a debate about the issue and the term “debate” doesnt sound like they knew for sure.

Here, I think I represented this incorrectly. The belief had always been held and passed down through apostolic succession. To call this “debate”, is not correct when compared to the modern day understanding of what it is to debate an issue. First, let’s remember that these men were starting with commonly held axioms. For magesterial argument to be successful, all parties must hold to the same guiding principles and concepts, so that the portion of material in question is shared contextually by all parties. It comes closer to the process of clarification and acknowledgement of a teaching on an official basis, so as to put it to rest. The clarification was made in the 400’s, and codification took place in the 600’s. i.e. It is wrong to murder. This is an accepted tenet of natural law. Yet, in order to make sure that no one has the right to argue this natural fact to the contrary, it was codifed for all of mankind to follow in the Ten Commandments. It was codified again in Civil Law, and then again in every country and state law in the civilized world. Perhaps we do this so that we are reminded that this is not an issue for argument. It is a dogma of organic origin. This is the same concept behind Church dogma. For it to be fully understood, however, it is approached with assumptions that we all agree on certain elements preceding the declaration of the dogma. If you’re not approaching the Church from the point of view of a person who believes in the principles of the Church, then you’re going to believe that all of Her canon is relative to subjective intellectual scrutiny.

Personally, I think that they would have been better off not making any statement on the virginity of Mary. Except of course that Jesus was born of a virgin.

But see, it’s not a point of being better off. In the Church, it is the truth, and when any truth is clarified to the point where it no longer reducable axiomatically, then it is codified. It didn’t matter whether it was convenient or expedient to the Church. It was necessary to declare in order to cap any further discussion of this matter, then making it an axiom when discussing other matters which may come up in the future. These things are codifed at the time that they are necessary to do so. It was an issue that had not been clearly understood by some element of the Church. Since axioms are built upon, it was important to solidify the axiom, so that what is built on it, and extrapolated from it is the truth when this matter becomes simply a link or a part of the reasoning of a new unforseen problem. That is why we have dogmas as opposed to not having dogmas. To keep the rules pure for future theologians.

Because he knew her personally and had actually asked her. What he believed is pretty much irrelevent, he kept other teaching from the chuch as well.

I don’t understand this one. I’m sorry.

Im sorry but that is not actually fact, its an assumption and a belief. There is nothing concrete to state either way.

In the faith of the Catholic church, dogma is fact. It was important to the Church to clarify and codify this fact. By faith in the teachings of the Church in regards to dogma, it is accepted as a given now that it is dogma, and any argument that would proceed about Marian doctrine between believing Catholics would include this principle now as a building block, as opposed to a continuing puzzle. If you are not Catholic, (or even if you are, I suppose), you may not accept the dogma because of free will, but you are not accomplishing anything by not accepting it, but self withdrawal by degrees from the body of Christ.

Until someone finds something concrete, then both schools of thought will remain assumptions only (I really wish that someone does find some definate proof that states one way or the other for certain).

My brother, sadly, the type of proof you are seeking may never be found. The good news is that part of the beauty of the teachings of Christ is that you are relieved of responsibility for this proof. You may have faith in Him and His Church, and you are free. True freedom.

 

[StevenFrancis]

PART THREE OF THREE

Would Jesus having genetic siblings change anything?

Who knows? I suppose it would, hence the Church found it important enough to declare as dogma. If it were not important to the grand scheme of things they’d have left it be. I have chosen with my free will to have faith in the teaching of the Church. With this in mind, it is no longer important to me. It’s been said by people infinitely closer in history and linkage to the High Priest to be the truth. Who am I, that I can declare otherwise. This is why disapprove of my own posts that I read after the fact in which I argue strongly about something or other. I am doing something against my own principles. If I say I am a faithful, and trusting Catholic, that fact speaks for my entire belief system. Why argue with anyone? It is healthy to carry on scholarly discussion from contrary veiwpoints on matters not yet settled, so long as both parties are in agreement on what IS settled. Otherwise there is no point really in argument, and I’m sorry for having taken that tone and position. We are only asked to carry the message. Defend what we are able, but finally, it is God who will solidify the answers in one or another person. I will freely give Catholic answers to inquiries, for that is the purpose of this forum. I will debate what is debatable. Otherwise, I need to recuse myself from dialog which causes consternation in myself or others. It is the peace of the Lord which I desire to convey.

That is the most vital question in this whole issue, would it matter if he did?

I believe it would, because the Church believed it would. I don’t know the reason yet, but when I do, I will pass them on here. I know it has to do with the importance of Jesus and who He is. His divinity.

Why put message like that?

I’m truly sorry for this. This was misplaced sarcasm. I allow myself sometimes to get cranked by this whole new age idea going around that the Christ was some kind of beautiful man who said a bunch of beautiful things, like Ghandi or the Dali Lama or Martin Luther King, Jr. or somebody. And if we all just followed his message (hence the quote marks), or any of these other guys messages for that matter, then isn’t that enough? Well, I’m sure it’s obvious that I don’t think that is enough. The message is great, but so were a lot of other messages. Some of them don’t even contradict in very many places. The message in this case however is supplemented by the fact that it was coming from the one God. To me, the fact of Jesus being God himself in human form simultaneous with his existence both within and outside of time as Father and Holy Spirit is the PRIME axiom. The Holy Trinity is the central universal truth. I don’t really want to debate with anyone who does not accept Trinity of faith. Not for dubious reasons, but simply because without some modicum of common understanding, debate is pointless. Really. To a non-trinitarian, I can simply pass on information. I’m lost when it comes to rationale argument because frankly I’m just not smart enough to carry on that kind of conversation. I don’t enjoy argument for the sake of contrary position, and games of mental ping pong. It’s not my cup of tea. There are others who love this. My brother for instance. That’s another post or two ; -).

So what you are suggesting is that Christ wouldnt be Christ if he had siblings. He would not be perfect, the Son, the word made flesh ect if he had siblings.

I’m not sure if that’s what I’m saying. Right now, I can’t find any other reason, just searching my own interior faculties as to why the magesterium would declare this to be dogma. I think I have a book on the dogmas though, that goes into the specific events, acts and heresies leading to each declaration and I’m willing to look it up, if you’re truly interested in this information.

Mate, it took 200 years for men to make a declaration on the issue and that was around 600 years after the fact. Making a declaration like that would need some proof that was beyond contesting and would remove all doubt, I dont believe that they have/had that sort of proof going by when they made the call and how long it took them. That has nothing to do with democracy or anything else.

As stated above, I think I represented this incorrectly.

As for the whole post, I had not prayed, and did not approach it with a charitable heart. I am sorry.

Peace to you,

Steven

 

[StevenFrancis]

Hi,All

Its amazing how the authority of the one true church, is put to task through the centuries ! Especially during the reformation when private interpertation became the word !

Think please : If Jesus had brothers and sisters doesn’t logic tell you they woud have been at the foot of the cross with their Mother, its either that or they were a very disfunctional family, if in fact there were other siblings they must have disliked there Mother as well as Jesus, this does not add up !

The Cathoic Church has the correct exegesis and no argument in the world will change that.

Peace,OneNow1:twocents:

I just wrote a book full of posts and didn’t come close to expressing my position as well as this. Three short paragraphs!! I admire that writing skill. I’m still painfully verbose, I fear.

Anyway, thank you. And this one will probably actually be read, to boot!!

Peace,

Steven

 

[justinthemartyr]

mark 3:35
35Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother."

luke 8:21
21He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Elric

RE: Post # 102 quote = Elric…>I dont think that is the right way to go about it, that shows a narrow mind rather than an open mind.

No offense here Elric, I rather think your mind is cluttered with to many suppositions, rather then following, the church that was there throughout antiquity.

Quote= OneNow1 These two verses sholud give you pause and reflection.

Luke 1: Verses 43, 46, KJV. and whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me ? And Mary said my soul doth Magnify the Lord.

Methinks the word magnify tells it all, only purity can magnify the Lord and nothing less !

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Jimmy_B]

What Do You Think?

 

[Elric]

PART ONE OF THREE

Dear Elric:

I will endeavor to answer some of your questions below, but before even getting started with that, I want to apologize for the tone of the message from which you extracted all my quotes. I am sometimes given to writing and speaking in a fashion that is uncharitable, and when I do this, (usually as a result of failing to pray before posting), it comes off as contentious, and even pompous. This is something I am working on, and I am truly sorry that my post inflicted this undesirable tone. In addition, I have been frustrated lately at the lack of faith in the world, and I’m afraid a little bit of that frustration found it’s way into my ramblings.

Mate, thanks for the appology but its not necessary. To be honest, I really dont think that you did anything that requires an appology.

We are only human and that means that we are prone to being less than perfect, which I think is expected in debates of this nature.

I have to say that I do respect you for having the courage to appologise (even though it isnt necessary), for saying where you felt you acted wrongly and for doing so in a public manner (as opposed to doing so in a PM).

For what its worth, you have my sincere respect and admiration for doing so.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to you.

 

[Derrickdcosta]

Hi all,
Just thought you would be interested in what St Alphonsus who quotes St Jerome wrote about this issue, you may perhaps not accept his words even though St Jerome is responsible for the Catholic Vulgate but you must appreciate the logic of his reply. This is taken from the History of Heresies By St Alphonsus Liguori ****CHAPTER V. HERESIES OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. ARTICLE I. THE HERESIES OF ELVIDIUS, JOVINIANUS, AND VIGILANTIUS. ****

Elvidius was a disciple of the Arian Ausentius, who was intruded into the See of Milan by the Emperor Constans, when he banished St. Dionisius. St. Jerome says he was a turbulent character, both as priest and layman; but, notwithstanding this high authority, it is doubtful whether he ever was a priest, because, as Noel Alexander says, he was a poor peasant, who scarcely knew his letters. He began to disseminate his heretical doctrines in the year 382. He said that the Blessed Virgin had other children by St. Joseph, besides our Lord, and he relied on the authority of Tertullian for this blasphemy; but St. Jerome proves that Tertullian never held such doctrine. St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, and especially St. Jerome refuted the errors of Elvidius.
He drew three arguments from the Scriptures in support of his heresy : First That text of St. Matthew : " Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt., i, 18).
He, therefore, argued, as the text says " before they came together," it is a proof that they after wards did so. Next he adduced the twenty-fifth verse of the same chapter : " And he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son." Therefore, he argues he knew her after. St. Jerome, in his answer, says : " **Should I grieve or smile at this folly." He then asks, in derision : If any one should say that Elvidius was seized on by death before he did penance, is that a proof that he did penance after death ? He then brings other texts of Scripture to refute him. Our Lord says to his apostles, " Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii, 20); does that prove, says St. Jerome, that Jesus Christ will not be with his elect any more after the end of the world ? St. Paul says of Christ, " For he must reign until he hath put all his enemies under his feet" (Cor. xv, 25); so, when our Lord has conquered his enemies, he will reign no longer. In the book of Genesis it is said of the crow that left the ark, " That it did not return till the waters were dried up" (Gen. viii, 7); does it then follow that it returned to the ark when the waters were dried up ? **Away, then, with arguments of this sort, says St. Jerome (1); the Scripture here tells, not what was done, but what was not done not what took place, but what did not.
The second proof Elvidius adduces is taken from the text already mentioned (Matt, i, 25) : " She brought forth her first-born son ;" therefore, if he was her first-born, she must have had others after. St. Jerome answers this : The Lord commanded, that for every first-born a certain ransom should be paid a month after the birth (Numbers, xviii, 15, 16). Here, then, says St. Jerome, according to Elvidius, one might say : " How can I be obliged to pay a price for my first-born after a month; how can I tell whether I shall ever have a second ? I must wait till a second is born to me, and then I can pay for the first-born." But the Scripture says itself, that the first-born is that which first " openeth the womb."
The same is declared in Exodus, where it says : " The Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt" (Exod. xii, 29). Here there is no doubt, but that the text speaks of only-born as well as first-born. His third argument is from the text of St. Luke (viii, 19) : " His mother and brethren came to him." Therefore, he had brothers; but St. Jerome proves, from a great many passages in the Scriptures, that first-cousins are also called brothers, and the brothers referred to in that text are St. James and St. John, the children of the other Mary, the sister of the Mother of God.
(1) St. Hieron. l. 1, Comment, in cap. ii, Matt.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Derrickdcosta:

He began to disseminate his heretical doctrines in the year 382. He said that the Blessed Virgin had other children by St. Joseph, besides our Lord, and he relied on the authority of Tertullian for this blasphemy; but St. Jerome proves that Tertullian never held such doctrine. St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, and especially St. Jerome refuted the errors of Elvidius.

Thank you.