N
Nicea325
Guest
It is apparent Rev Kev does not meaning of 'first-born" in the Jewish culture. I cannot believe he said: Only born?
- Status
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com
Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight.
This is a cut and paste like you accuse me of doing.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly! Pure conjecture and wishful thinking. NO WHERE does Scripture say James is Mary’s other son…NO WHERE!
N
Nicea325
Guest
That is besides the point Rev Kev. I find it amazing how you pridefully REJECT the countless writings from the early church;however, adhere to modern writers who for the most part are anti-Catholic on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Truly amazing!
G
guanophore
Guest
Matt 27:55-56
55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee (James and John "Boanerges
.Joseph is also rendered “Joses”.
Mark 3:18
and James the son of Alphaeus,
So this James, the son of "the other Mary (also refered to as the sister of the Mother of Jesus), gave birth to James Joseph, Simon, Jude and their sisters.
The other James is the son of Zebedee, so maybe they think Mary the mother of Jesus was in cahouts with him?
Mark 1:19-20
19 And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb’edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20 And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb’edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
Jerome writes:
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
I agree with Jerome that reading the Fathers makes one wise.
For those who are willing to read the background on the history of the perpetual virginity there is a good article in the library here to get you started.
Or, you can follow the weak and superficial writers offered by rev kev. who do not include the history of this matter.
T
T_More
Guest
The best article I’ve seen on refuting these typical arguments against the Church’s teachings on this subject.
catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm
catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm
G
guanophore
Guest
No, they are links to the documents. All the ECF’s are in the public domain, and are no longer under copyrite. However, it does help the reader to have a link to the text so they can read all of it.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Well unfortunatley guanophore,many so-called Bible-Only never bother to read early church history. And why? Because it is not in agreement with so many novelties Bible-Only folks preach and teach.Matt 27:55-56
55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee (James and John "Boanerges
Joseph is also rendered “Joses”.
Mark 3:18
and James the son of Alphaeus,
So this James, the son of "the other Mary (also refered to as the sister of the Mother of Jesus), gave birth to James Joseph, Simon, Jude and their sisters.
The other James is the son of Zebedee, so maybe they think Mary the mother of Jesus was in cahouts with him?
Mark 1:19-20
19 And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zeb’edee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20 And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zeb’edee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.
Jerome writes:
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
I agree with Jerome that reading the Fathers makes one wise.
For those who are willing to read the background on the history of the perpetual virginity there is a good article in the library here to get you started.
Or, you can follow the weak and superficial writers offered by rev kev. who do not include the history of this matter.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Jesus had blood brothers and sisters plain and simple.
To suggest otherwise is rediculious.
If you choose not to believe it then so be it but I believe he had sibblings because Scripture mentions them several times.
To suggest otherwise is rediculious.
If you choose not to believe it then so be it but I believe he had sibblings because Scripture mentions them several times.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Oh I see so for nearly 1600 years everyone was ridicoulus until the Bible-Only Baptist popped-up and SAID she did because they were ignorant as to what certain words meant in Aramaic/Hebrew. And wrong! No WHERE…does Scripture state Mary gave birth to other children…NO WHERE!
Where does scripture explicitly teach Mary gave birth to other children? NO WHERE! You are wrong and will always be wrong.
A
adrift
Guest
Scripture shows that these relatives were older. Therefore they could not be Mary’s children as Scripture says that Jesus was first born to emphasis the Virgin Birth. Scripture has to be in context not only with regard to other versus but also to the culture as well.
N
Nicea325
Guest
You see the problem is the Rev Kev is spiritually prideful as many founders of many Protestant churches: Knox,Zwingli,Calvin,etc. I think the massive divisions in Protestanism speaks volumes. As one person here called it: The Protestant Deformation.
A
adrift
Guest
It is annoying that the same thing is stated over an over again without acknowledging that the points made have been refuted, ignored and discarded. They are never acknowledged.
Rev Kev states Jesus has blood brothers without acknowledging what he has been told that brother had many connotations in the Bible. He has been told before that scripture shows that according to the culture they brothers must have been older to talk to Jesus as they did. There is never a rebuttal but a restatement of his beliefs with no acknowledgment that his beliefs have been refuted.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Blood brothers is most definitely not Scriptural. This is adding to Scripture. This is a tradition that has duped you.
Siblings, perhaps. Blood siblings–never mentioned.
Children of Mary? Nuh-uh. Never once in Scripture did you see that.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I have stated that according to Jewish law if the older brother is acting in a so called crazy way his younger sibblings have the right to talk to him in such a manner.
I have acknowledged what you have said I did not many times here on the CAF.
Ya know you have said the same thing over and over again about me and we have gone round and round about this. It is boring. Come up with something other that the same old junk.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
You are blind.
F
fbl9
Guest
In my opinion to say Mary had other children shows a lack of reverence.
Think about this for a bit An angel tells you the woman you are to marry has been impregnated by God, by God. Think put yourself in Joseph’s shoes would you be desiring that.Do you think you are “worthy” enough that you wouldn’t degrade the womb that nutured God’s Son by defiling it with sinful humanity.
What was that about men thinking carnally.hmmm.
Think about this for a bit An angel tells you the woman you are to marry has been impregnated by God, by God. Think put yourself in Joseph’s shoes would you be desiring that.Do you think you are “worthy” enough that you wouldn’t degrade the womb that nutured God’s Son by defiling it with sinful humanity.
What was that about men thinking carnally.hmmm.
T
thomasf
Guest
I think this answers it all. The bible and scripture explains who these ‘brothers and sister’ really are, and they are NOT children of Mary, Mother of Christ. To repeatedly say so is adding to scripture. It is also error and heresy.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Degradeing the womb of Mary? In no way would it do that. God intended for a husband and wife to have relations to have children. Its not a sin to be with your wife in a sexual way. That is God’s intent. Being her husband would make him worthy. He was worthy enough to raise God’s son but not worthy enough to have a normal relationship with his wife. Are you for real?
How is it a lack of reverence for her to have other children?
R
rev_kevin
Guest
How so?
- Status