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

[guanophore]

These Marian doctrines are absolutely amazing. Not only do they claim that Mary did not have other children as in Matthew 13:55-56 and John 7:5 clearly show

It seems that way to you because you are misunderstanding the verses. You will have no credibility on this issue until you can explain the verses that indicate the children listed in Matt 13 belong to a different Mary. I understand why it is hard for you to look at the evidence, because you wish to use this to pull the rug out from under the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, your desire was preceeded by millenia, and the Church has already won this battle over heresy.

but now she is the mother of Catholics. This is what happens when people reject the Scriptures i.e. Sola Scriptura and open themselves up to believe almost anything.

Not just Catholics, but all who are members of the Body of Christ. You may want to reject you mother, because maybe you have no respect for her, or maybe she hurt you and you never got over it, or maybe you don’t speak to her, but that does not make her any less your mother.

Mary gave birth to Christ. The devil hates her because of it. He tries to make war on her, and God protects her. Failing that, "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.
Rev 12:16-17

As Jesus stated, Luke 8:21
21 But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

We are all family, if we are those who keep the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus. We are related to one another like family. Mary was even more blessed because she heard the word of God, and kept it. Those that do the same can also call her Mother.

If you do not wish to honor Jesus’ mother as He did, this is your perogative. Why criticize those that do? how does it interfere with your salvation when other members of the Body adopt one another?

 

[Good_Fella]

These Marian doctrines are absolutely amazing. Not only do they claim that Mary did not have other children as in Matthew 13:55-56 and John 7:5 clearly show but now she is the mother of Catholics. This is what happens when people reject the Scriptures i.e. Sola Scriptura and open themselves up to believe almost anything.

Go back and review our replies. You’re obviously a slow learner. :banghead:

PAX

 

[justasking4]

Go back and review our replies. You’re obviously a slow learner. :banghead:

PAX

i’m very familar with yours and others who defend the idea that Mary had only one child. The problem is not that its not clear in the texts she had other children and Jesus had blood brothers and sisters but it has to do with your authority that claims it cannot be wrong in matters of faith. This is really the issue. Since you must believe this it will be almost impossible for you to accept what the Scriptures clearly say regarding this since your infallible authority says otherwise. You are in a bind. The Scriptures tells us she had other children in a number of ways and your church says no. Both cannot be right. Evidently you have chosen to follow your church instead of the Scriptrues.
View attachment 4257

 

[Tomster]

i’m very familar with yours and others who defend the idea that Mary had only one child. The problem is not that its not clear in the texts she had other children and Jesus had blood brothers and sisters but it has to do with your authority that claims it cannot be wrong in matters of faith. This is really the issue. Since you must believe this it will be almost impossible for you to accept what the Scriptures clearly say regarding this since your infallible authority says otherwise. You are in a bind. The Scriptures tells us she had other children in a number of ways and your church says no. Both cannot be right. Evidently you have chosen to follow your church instead of the Scriptrues.
View attachment 4257

There is only one Church. How many others, according to your thinking, did Jesus establish?

 

[justasking4]

There is only one Church. How many others, according to your thinking, did Jesus establish?

What are the characteristics of a church?

 

[rinnie]

What are the characteristics of a church?

ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC.

THE CHURCH IS ONE SHE ACKNOWLEDGES ONE GOD
THE CHURCH IS HOLY THE MOST HOLYGOD IS HER AUTHOR.
THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC SHE PROCLAIMS THE FULLNESS OF THE FAITH.

THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC SHE IS BUILT ON A LASTING FOUNDATION THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LAMB.

 

[rinnie]

What are the characteristics of a church?

ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC.

THE CHURCH IS ONE SHE ACKNOWLEDGES ONE GOD
THE CHURCH IS HOLY THE MOST HOLYGOD IS HER AUTHOR.
THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC SHE PROCLAIMS THE FULLNESS OF THE FAITH.

THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC SHE IS BUILT ON A LASTING FOUNDATION THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LAMB.

 

[Good_Fella]

i’m very familar with yours and others who defend the idea that Mary had only one child. The problem is not that its not clear in the texts she had other children and Jesus had blood brothers and sisters but it has to do with your authority that claims it cannot be wrong in matters of faith. This is really the issue. Since you must believe this it will be almost impossible for you to accept what the Scriptures clearly say regarding this since your infallible authority says otherwise. You are in a bind. The Scriptures tells us she had other children in a number of ways and your church says no. Both cannot be right. Evidently you have chosen to follow your church instead of the Scriptrues.
View attachment 4257

You confirm that you are a slow learner.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by justasking4
i’m very familar with yours and others who defend the idea that Mary had only one child. The problem is not that its not clear in the texts she had other children and Jesus had blood brothers and sisters but it has to do with your authority that claims it cannot be wrong in matters of faith. This is really the issue. Since you must believe this it will be almost impossible for you to accept what the Scriptures clearly say regarding this since your infallible authority says otherwise. You are in a bind. The Scriptures tells us she had other children in a number of ways and your church says no. Both cannot be right. Evidently you have chosen to follow your church instead of the Scriptrues.

Don’t you see how you place yourself in an impossile position, of being your own pope ?

I’m going to try to explain: From the beginning of the ministry, that Jesus passed on to the apostles, we have had to trust the church that Jesus established, first and formost. Because.

It was the church that established the canons of the bible. Another words the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit established the scriptures as inerrant not infallible

Now you may believe that the First Baptist, was that first church and measured the canonand that is fine. Would’nt that mean they have the authority ?

Now the problem lies in the fact this woud not be historically accurate.

Using the facts that are available to us, we choose to believe the sources, that either by hearing or written historical evidence we assume to be correct.

So know matter how you cut the cake, whether it be theology history, we must be taught by some authority, otherwise there would be chaos; and we can see this with all the differing views of scripture.

In fact the bible itself, says to test the spirits, doesn’t this mean scripture can be interperted unwisely ? And therefore needs an interperter as guidance.

Since the reformation and bible alone theology if indeed it were true, that all we needed was the bible, something has really gone wrong.

All you have to do is look at the world today. So till there is one faith, one teacher, one in mind and spirit with all believers, different beliefs will continue to emerge.

I hope all this makes some kind of sense ?

Peace, OneNow

 

[FortyDays]

I am one of the multitude who does NOT believe that Jesus had biological siblings. The sisters and brothers he had were his step-siblings. And as for proving this Mystery, this is something that is faith-based, a “given” if you will.

 

[mike00077]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. 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”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

 

[Ingram]

Perhaps not in direct answer to this question, but antecedent to it, what of Mat 1;25 and the key word “until” regarding the perpetual virginity? Why “until” if there was never to be intercourse? and if there was then of course children might then result.

 

[rinnie]

I am one of the multitude who does NOT believe that Jesus had biological siblings. The sisters and brothers he had were his step-siblings. And as for proving this Mystery, this is something that is faith-based, a “given” if you will.

Spot on. We either believe in all of the teachings or the Church, which I agree has to be a grace given by God. If you have this Grace you can except this as faith. If you do not have faith, no one can or will ever convince you.

 

[Sunwater]

Just something to think about. Mary would have been expected to have more than one child. She, herself, would have expected to be blessed with more than one child ALSO a man (Jesus) presenting himself to an unknown village during his travels would have been politley asked two things upon his entry into the community: they would first question his lineage then second ask if he had a wife and sons A man was considered evil if not married by a certain age and if married but childless he would have been considered forsaken by God. So…if Jesus at 32 walked in to a community and asked to be heard, how far do you think he would get of he were not married with at least one son? Back then, if a man had been married and his wife did not produce at least one child in a span of let’s say five years, the elders would come to him and insist that the law dictates that he set his first wife aside and marry again in order to have children.
Just something to think about.

 

[Matariel]

Perhaps not in direct answer to this question, but antecedent to it, what of Mat 1;25 and the key word “until” regarding the perpetual virginity? Why “until” if there was never to be intercourse? and if there was then of course children might then result.

What’s you’re point? In one part of the Bible, it says someone was was “faithful to his wife until he died”. Does that mean he committed adultery after he died?

There are several other such statements in the Bible. And also, it is used the same way in English, as shown above.

 

[Br_Joshua_Seidl]

With more than 600 replies I am not sure if my responce has already been made. As far as I can tell, there would be no way to prove there is or not biological sibblings for Jesus. I do feel it is quite possible that there are older step children in the immediate family if in the case Joseph was married previously. His status as Chaste and Mary’s staus as virgin would not at all be affected, if that was the situation of their marriage. I read something by Pope John Paul II (written prior to his papacy) that alludes to the same thing.

A number of folks, including priests who have had rather limited study of Hebrew and other ancient languages or clasical languages such as Greek argue there was no word specifying “cousin,” therefore they say the brothers & sisters mentioned in the Gospel are cousins. Not a bad guess, but as I said, those folks have LIMITED education in those languages because there is a clear distinction in those languages between cousin and brother and sister, other wise how is it Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin, and not translated as a sister?

Others who argue simply based on Hebrew are to be reminded the Gospels were written in Greek.

His Mother and Brothers thought he was mad and so they went up to collect him. This preceeds the better known reading of why Mary and the others were outside when Jesus explained who is or not his Mother, Bothers and Sisters. (Don’t get shocked - Mary pondered many things in her heart; but was not given infused knowledge. Lot of rumors floated down to their village and the family had to go up and see what was going on with Jesus.)

The question is “bioliogical” not adoptive sibblings. Tradition suggests there are no biological sibblings. Many Church Teachers and Patriarchs have spoken of the possibility of adoptive in the form of step sibblings. Western puritans influenced by Jansenism and of a more recent age began the argument that the Greeks or Hebrews meant cousin of companions - not brothers.

 

[Good_Fella]

A number of folks, including priests who have had rather limited study of Hebrew and other ancient languages or clasical languages such as Greek argue there was no word specifying “cousin,” therefore they say the brothers & sisters mentioned in the Gospel are cousins. Not a bad guess, but as I said, those folks have LIMITED education in those languages because there is a clear distinction in those languages between cousin and brother and sister, other wise how is it Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin, and not translated as a sister?

Others who argue simply based on Hebrew are to be reminded the Gospels were written in Greek.

The consesus view of modern New Testament scholars is that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in the Greek by an author other than the apostle. However, Irenaeus (A.D. 180) affirms that Matthew wrote his gospel among the Hebrews for them. Adv. Haer., lll, i, 2]. Eusbebius (c. 320 A.D.) informs us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of Matthew, states he has learned from tradition that Matthew himself wrote his gospel in Hebrew for the Jewish converts [Church History Vl. 25.3-4]. According to the church historian, Pantaenus found a copy of Matthew’s gospel in India written in the Hebrew. Apparently it was left by the apostle Bartholemew who had evangelized there [Church History V.10.3]. Jerome affirms he brought the Hebrew text back with him to Alexandria. But the testimony of Pantaenus is only second-hand. Since Matthew first preached to the Hebrews, he addressed them in their native language when he wrote his gospel for them as well. When Matthew felt obliged to preach in other parts of the world, he took his original gospel with him. Jerome claims that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, but it was translated into the Greek by an unkown person after the text had reached other countries “Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv.]. (Greek was a vernacular language in the Roman empire at the time.) Erasmus was the first known person to have questioned whether the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, for he believed no one had ever testified to having seen any trace of the original text. However, Jerome used Matthew’s Hebrew text several times to solve problems of interpretation when he composed the Latin Vulgate. Still Jerome could have mistaken the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. In any event, the Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers at the time believed Matthew himself wrote his gospel in Hebrew.
(cf. Catholic Encylopedia: Gospel of St. Matthew).

In all likelihood it would appear that the Gospel of Mark was written by the author who goes by that name, a resident of Jerusalem (John Mark) who had heard Peter preach and accompanied the apostle to Rome to serve as his interpreter where he preached to the Romans. Peter could not not speak Greek as Paul was fluently able to in his mission at Rome. Irenaeus tells us: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us what was preached by Peter” [Adv. Haer. lll.1, lll.10.6]. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) affirms that Mark was asked by Peter’s listeners to write down (in the Greek) what the apostle had preached to them [Eusebius, Church History Vl.14]. Origen says that Peter dictated what he wanted Mark to write before giving his final approval. [ibid., ll.15]. Jerome concurs Mark wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and Peter authorized it to be read in the churches “De Vir. Ill.”, viii.] and that the Second Gospel was written by Mark with Peter orally narrating what was to be put down in writing “Ad Hedib.”, ep. cxx]. The Church Fathers, who would include Justin Martyr in the mid second century, connected the Gospel of Mark with Peter.
[cf. Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of St. Mark]

The Hebrew and Aramaic ‘ah’ was used for various types of close relations. Since there is no word for “cousin” in the Semitic languages, Peter would have used the male and female forms normally used for siblings (“brothers and sisters”) when referring to cousins in his Aramaic or Hebraic narration. Mark could have then used the Greek word for “brothers and sisters” (adelphos) to preserve what Peter meant in Semitic usage: cousins. Thus Mark could have transliterated the words in his Greek translation by importing a Jewish idiom. I’m sure Peter made it clear to Mark that Jesus had no siblings.

In all probabilty Luke wrote his gospel in the Greek, and we find he used ‘anepsios’ (“cousin”) when referring to Elizabeth. But it’s being used here in the voice of the author and narrator, and not by Jewish characters engaged in dialogue. There was no reason, then, for Luke to incorporate a Semitic idiom in this instance, especially since he was directly addressing the “most excellent Theophilus” who probably was a Greek speaking Roman official, judging by the exaltation in the greeting, interested in the Christian faith. Luke wrote his gospel to confirm what was being preached and traditionally believed in the Church.

PAX :harp:

 

[Matariel]

There was no reason, then, for Luke to incorporate a Semitic idiom in this instance, especially since he was directly addressing the “most excellent Theophilus” who probably was a Greek speaking Roman official…

Actually, there is a theory that Saint Luke was not addressing a person named “Theophilos”, but was speaking to “the lover of God”, anyone willing to know the truth. They say “to the lover of God” is a better translation. I have no idea if this is correct, though.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, there is a theory that Saint Luke was not addressing a person named “Theophilos”, but was speaking to “the lover of God”, anyone willing to know the truth. They say “to the lover of God” is a better translation. I have no idea if this is correct, though.

This is correct. There may have been a person named Theophilus, but the word does mean "lover of 'God. It comes from the Gk. Theo (God) and philus. this is the same root word we have for the city of Philiadelphia the city of brotherly love. We also derive filial, brotherly relations, brotherly love. This is one of the kinds of love Jesus asks Peter if he has. Peter, do you phileo me?

We do, indeed, take this gospel as it is written to all who love God, and want to be informed about His life.

 

[Good_Fella]

Actually, there is a theory that Saint Luke was not addressing a person named “Theophilos”, but was speaking to “the lover of God”, anyone willing to know the truth. They say “to the lover of God” is a better translation. I have no idea if this is correct, though.

People who subscribe to this theory overlook the formal expression Luke uses with reference to Theophilus. The expression “most excellent” is known to have been used by people when addressing Roman officials. We find examples of the use of this expression in Acts 24:2; 26:25 with reference to Felix and Festus. In his introduction in the Book of Acts, Luke greets the man with the expression “O, Theophilus”, indicating he was no longer in office by the time Luke was writing or had finished writing. I have this information from an article I had read on the subject at www.catholicplanet.com .

Nevertheless, the word “cousin” (anepsios) is used in the voice of the narrator, not in the voice of actual Jewish characters that would beg the incorporation of a Jewish idiom. Besides, Luke did not write his gospel for Palestinian Jews, unlike Matthew, which could also explain why he wrote in the Greek.

PAX :tiphat: