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

[Church_Militant]

** The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.**

 According to the Word of God...

If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:**

** Martin Luther:** “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

** John Calvin:** “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

** Ulrich Zwingli:** “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

More info:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Other ECF quotes about the Blessed Virgin:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Other info about Catholic teaching about Mary
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[sola_scriptura]

Come on CM … isn’t the same post you’ve been pasting throughout the forum? Gee wiz, do you think I didn’t read the other half a dozen times

 

[Church_Militant]

I believe that Jesus did not have any biological brothers and/or sisters.

I also believe that there is the possibility that Joseph was a widower and that Jesus had -]adoptive (best term I can think of)/-] STEP

brothers and/or sisters through Joseph.That’s what I would say.

 

[Jimmy_B]

** The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.**

According to the Word of God…
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

More info:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Other ECF quotes about the Blessed Virgin:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Other info about Catholic teaching about Mary
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Another excellent post! thank you Michael for all of the work provided here, with all the qoutes and links.

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

Come on CM … isn’t the same post you’ve been pasting throughout the forum? Gee wiz, do you think I didn’t read the other half a dozen times

I can’t tell from your lack of serious consideration and response.

Disprove me if you disagree. I don’t think you can.

Another excellent post! thank you Michael for all of the work provided here, with all the qoutes and links.

Peace

Thanks Jimmy. Luke 17:10

 

[sola_scriptura]

** The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.**

 According to the Word of God...

If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:**

** Martin Luther:** “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

** John Calvin:** “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

** Ulrich Zwingli:** “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

More info:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Other ECF quotes about the Blessed Virgin:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

Other info about Catholic teaching about Mary
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

best argument I’ve seen so far CM … good job! I’m not sure I exactly agree, but still good argument.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I was trying to add to my comment but time ran out. Anyway:

CF:

In some ways your argument makes a case against the view that Joseph brought children into the marriage.

I understand why the church does this. If we think Jesus had older siblings then indeed it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would appoint John to care for His mother. However, if His siblings were much younger this would make sense.

Another important thing to note is the absence of Joseph after Luke 2:41-51. We might assume Joseph passed away before the crucifixion, which would further explain Jesus appointing His disciple to care for His mother.

All in all the better view seems to be that Mary had more children.

Every other explanation I’ve seen, including that of the reformers with whom I largely identify with, is just unconvincing. It just strains the text too much.

 

[Church_Militant]

I was trying to add to my comment but time ran out. Anyway:

CM:

In some ways your argument makes a case against the view that Joseph brought children into the marriage. Really? Prove that.

I understand why the church does this. If we think Jesus had older siblings then indeed it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would appoint John to care for His mother. However, if His siblings were much younger this would make sense.

Do you have any data, historical or scriptural, to prove this assertion?

I’ve searched the scriptures and haven’t seen anything there. There are historical documents that do offer information on this. Have you read them? I have.

Another important thing to note is the absence of Joseph after Luke 2:41-51. We might assume Joseph passed away before the crucifixion, which would further explain Jesus appointing His disciple to care for His mother.

Yep, and since Jesus was the only son then …

All in all the better view seems to be that Mary had more children.

Regardless of the fact that there is no scriptural or historical proof to support that “view”?

Every other explanation I’ve seen, including that of the reformers with whom I largely identify with, is just unconvincing. It just strains the text too much.

“Strains the text”? If one claims to be a person who believes the Bible only is the final authority for all that you believe then such a claim is inconsistent with that asserted belief. If the text of the scriptures plainly teach something then based on your assertion of belief, you should accept it as written, not claim that the plain meaning “strains the text”.

 

[Good_Fella]

Can you prove He didn’t?

Jimmy isn’t out to “prove” that Mary was ever-virgin or “disprove” that she wasn’t. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an article of Catholic faith initially based on Sacred Tradition and on an oral tradition originating from apostolic time. The enduring consciousness of the Church of this truth is clearly expressed in the consistent writings and teachings of the early Church Fathers through the centuries (paradosis). The earliest ones to be counted among them are Ignatius of Antioch (c.A.D. 110),Justyn Martyr (c. A.D. 155), and Irenaeus (c.A.D. 180). The burden of “proof” rests with modern Protestants who dare challenge the Church’s traditional awareness of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Since these Christians have been severed from the historic Christian faith, they suffer the handicap of having to rely on their own private interpretations of Scripture to form their personal judgments. And indeed there are Protestants who reject the Church’s Marian doctrines and challenge them by citing or quoting Scripture. And there are some who persist in trying to refute Church dogma, attempting to hit Catholics on the head with their own Bible while hopping on one leg - divorced from Tradition.

Jimmy is addressing those people who dare to presume they can refute the Catholic faith by appealling to the written word and inviting them to state their case. Catholics like myself are welcome to expose their erroneous conclusions. The early Church Fathers did not strictly base their Marian teachings on Scripture, in that they opened the Bible as the original source and only source from which they could discern God’s truth. Their teachings were grounded on an Apostolic Tradition that began with the preaching of the Apostles since before the time the New Testament was written and compiled by the end of the first century.
( See Luke 1:1-4).

This whole notion of having to “prove” what we believe by appealling to Scripture is a rationalistic Protestant tendency originating with Martin Luther who, having left the Church and severed himself from Sacred Tradition, was compelled to establish Scripture alone as the formal rule of faith and medium of God’s revelation to his Church. But Protestant history has demonstrated that Scripture is not formally sufficient. The principle of Sola Scriptura has severely fractured the unity of faith and morals in Protestantism. Countless Protestants believe in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity while other numerous Protestants do not. (I admire Luther for retaining his veneration of Mary.) Those who refuse to accept and dare to refute this traditional apostolic teaching of the Church by appealing to Scripture alone are the ones Jimmy is addressing.

“Jesus became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down.”
Justin Martyr, ‘Dialogue with Trypho the Jew’ [c.155 A.D.]

Vote “No!”

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[sola_scriptura]

Good Fella:

Wow … if there’s a Holy Roman soldier award I give it to you my friend. That was a heck of an exposition of zealotry. Let’s you and me mount up on horses and go deal with the non-Christian heathens in the Middle East (it should be easy enough – horses are much faster than camels), then when we’re done we can duke it out (like Highlander – there can be only one)

Although I’m not looking forward to another tour in the Middle East, I heard Iraq is better since I was there last a couple years ago. However, I say we start in Kuwait, at least they have TGI Friday’s and Ruby Tuesdays, we’ll be hungry after we’re done (although from what I saw when in Germany Turkish women are quite attractive, oops I guess we can’t have those kind of spoils – darn rules).

Peace

 

[TriuneUnity]

Good Fella:

Wow … if there’s a Holy Roman soldier award I give it to you my friend. That was a heck of an exposition of zealotry. Let’s you and me mount up on horses and go deal with the non-Christian heathens in the Middle East (it should be easy enough – horses are much faster than camels), then when we’re done we can duke it out (like Highlander – there can be only one)

Although I’m not looking forward to another tour in the Middle East, I heard Iraq is better since I was there last a couple years ago. However, I say we start in Kuwait, at least they have TGI Friday’s and Ruby Tuesdays, we’ll be hungry after we’re done (although from what I saw when in Germany Turkish women are quite attractive, oops I guess we can’t have those kind of spoils – darn rules).

Peace

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella:

Wow … if there’s a Holy Roman soldier award I give it to you my friend. That was a heck of an exposition of zealotry. Let’s you and me mount up on horses and go deal with the non-Christian heathens in the Middle East (it should be easy enough – horses are much faster than camels), then when we’re done we can duke it out (like Highlander – there can be only one)

Although I’m not looking forward to another tour in the Middle East, I heard Iraq is better since I was there last a couple years ago. However, I say we start in Kuwait, at least they have TGI Friday’s and Ruby Tuesdays, we’ll be hungry after we’re don(although from what I saw when in Germany Turkish women are quite attractive, oops I guess we can’t have those kind of spoils – darn rules). Peace

Is there a Catholic parish I can attend in Kuwait once we get there? And Starbucks? :coffeeread:

Pax

 

[sola_scriptura]

Is there a Catholic parish I can attend in Kuwait once we get there? And Starbucks? :coffeeread:

Pax

There’s probably a Starbucks, but no Christian churches. That’s okay, after we get rid of all he heathens who won’t submit (which probably won’t be many, Kuwaitis are bunch of spoiled sissies) we can make them build us one. Our first week we may have to hold service in a house (Kuwaitis are lazy too, so there’s no way they’ll finish the church in a week); but that’s okay too because we’ll use some rich sultan’s house (or seize his private plane & go to Rome – even better). I love Rome, been there like geez I think three or four times, seen the Vatican at least twice (one time the Italian cops wouldn’t let me in with shorts, so I had to go buy pants, typical slob Yankee I am). Man, I don’t if you had the opportunity to look up at that ceiling, but what a sight for the eyes. Actually the entire Vatican is amazing. The rest of Rome … not so much.

If you don’t mind, we must hit Florence while we’re there. My favorite city on earth. And Germany … ahh we better avoid Germany, too much temptation (but it is cleaner than Italy I’ll give it that much). Funny story, one time I got lost in Austria, finally found my way into Germany, asked some guy with hair longer than my sister where in Austria I was, he shouted you’re in deutchland, like with so much vigor I though he passed a kidney stone. I started cracking up. No body really likes us in Europe, but oh well we are kind of annoying I guess

 

[Jimmy_B]

There’s probably a Starbucks, but no Christian churches…

He asked if there was a Catholic Church and there is one here. Catholicism is worldwide .

 

[sola_scriptura]

He asked if there was a Catholic Church and there is one here. Catholicism is worldwide .

There are Protestant churches in Kuwait to (frankly they hold Americans in high regard, when we first arrived on the ground driving through their city with machine guns in hand heading north, they were waving at us).

However, there are a few countries with no Roman Catholic Churches (or any Christian churches at all for that matter). However, that number decreases every day (in fact the RCC is building a church in Saudi Arabia the last I heard).

 

[Jimmy_B]

There are Protestant churches in Kuwait to (frankly they hold Americans in high regard, when we first arrived on the ground driving through their city with machine guns in hand heading north, they were waving at us).

However, there are a few countries with no Roman Catholic Churches (or any Christian churches at all for that matter). However, that number decreases every day (in fact the RCC is building a church in Saudi Arabia the last I heard).

 

[Good_Fella]

All in all the better view seems to be that Mary had more children.

Every other explanation I’ve seen, including that of the reformers with whom I largely identify with, is just unconvincing. It just strains the text too much.

Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.), Justin Martyr (A.D. 155), and Irenaeus (A.D.180) had a far better view than you will ever acquire. These Church Fathers knew by oral Tradition that Mary was ever-virgin. They did not have to sit down, search the scriptures, and formulate their own private interpretations. If anyone is straining the text too much (i.e. Mt 1:25) it’s modern day Protestants who have only their private judgments to go on. Being outside the Church and severed from the historic Christian faith, your position is hardly viable. I’ll get back to you on the NT texts Protestants tend to cite when I return from my Marian pilgrimage in Akita this weekend.

Pax
Good Fella

 

[sola_scriptura]

Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.), Justin Martyr (A.D. 155), and Irenaeus (A.D.180) had a far better view than you will ever acquire. These Church Fathers knew by oral Tradition that Mary was ever-virgin. They did not have to sit down, search the scriptures, and formulate their own private interpretations. If anyone is straining the text too much (i.e. Mt 1:25) it’s modern day Protestants who have only their private judgments to go on. Being outside the Church and severed from the historic Christian faith, your position is hardly viable. I’ll get back to you on the NT texts Protestants tend to cite when I return from my Marian pilgrimage in Akita this weekend.

Pax
Good Fella

I’m aware of Irenaeus’ Mariology & how bits and pieces of what is now RCC doctrine were revealed through the centuries. For instance the assumption doctrine popped up seemingly out of nowhere in the fourth century. Ever since Irenaeus said Mary is the New Eve because Mary obeyed while Eve disobeyed Marian theology has been an unstoppable freight train in RCC dogma and public opinion. Well, I disagree with the RCC position?

It’s probably not a point worth debating frankly. I know pretty much all the relevant information on this topic, or at least enough that I will not be swayed (and I know you won’t be either)???

Anyways, hope you enjoy your trip…

Blessings

 

[davidcoit]

It’s probably not a point worth debating frankly. I know pretty much all the relevant information on this topic, or at least enough that I will not be swayed (and I know you won’t be either)???

Anyways, hope you enjoy your trip…

Blessings

Well, I hope you enjoy your trip also, bring some ice water.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well, I hope you enjoy your trip also, bring some ice water.

such comments in itself shows a lack of Christian love and holiness. We may not say who will ascend to heaven or descend to hell. We can only have such confidence regarding our own standing with God.

Judgmentalism and bigotry is the work of the devil; so I pray you will reconsider your view of life and your unfortunate view toward others who may disagree with you?

I have every confidence that God will not put me to shame; and neither you nor the devil or any calamity will separate me from the His love.