"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[Rightlydivide]

Back on topic? How convenient, that you make your ‘point’ and then call let’s move on.

This is on topic. You claim the Church ‘discarded/destroyed’ documents that Mary definitely had other children, yet have not explained how that teaching survived such a suppression?

It appears your Church, represented by what you say, can spin history, even with the lack of evidence, ‘probably for doctrinal content’.

I do not claim they had other documents that supported Mary having other children. I believe the Bible is clear enough on the family of Jesus. I considere its origin to be scripture. Matthew, Mark, Paul make enough mentions that I have no reason to not believe that Christ’s family included brothers and sisters. I see no proof of a perpetual virginity; in fact the contrary. Scripture is enough to sustain my view whether or not anyone 800 years ago believed it. Truth is not determined by the number of people who adhere to it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes you do. In those documents we are assigned many different names by those who disagree with us as well as incomplete presentations of our history. But it worked out well in God’s time in our view.
Thanks./

I feel very, very sorry for you if this is your belief. You’ve been royally duped.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Worked out so well that people hundreds and hundreds of years later figured out the truth, which left generation after generation without His truth? Seems it was more in ‘your time’.

That is the story of the Bible! Even in Revelation, John tells us all about churches teaching incorrect doctrine. I never said the Truth (ie the BIble) went away. His Holy Spirit has always been at work in believers, even when they have some incorrect teachings. It is as it was supposed to be.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;7827002:

Yes you do. In those documents we are assigned many different names by those who disagree with us as well as incomplete presentations of our history. But it worked out well in God’s time in our view.
Thanks./

I feel very, very sorry for you if this is your belief. You’ve been royally duped.

It is my belief. I do not believe I have been duped. I think we should return to the topic however.

 

[Nicea325]

Starting about 100 years after His family was alive, different traditions developed (the earliest tradition being they were half brothers) in an attempt to maintain a belief about Mary that we do not believe the Bible teaches. But people began to place more emphasis on her so these legends are a logical outcome of that.
However, they conflict. The beliefs they were cousins is later than the belief developed by the anonymous writer of the Protoevangelium.

I am referring to the Fundamentalist tradition that Mary had other children,not the traditions of half-brothers,etc,etc. That is my position which I stated I do not read scores of ECF’s declaring Mary gave birth to other children.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is the story of the Bible! Even in Revelation, John tells us all about churches teaching incorrect doctrine. I never said the Truth (ie the BIble) went away. His Holy Spirit has always been at work in believers, even when they have some incorrect teachings. It is as it was supposed to be.

Yet the Bible itself was in the sole possession of the Church that took liberties with truth with this great suppression of truth? You have to see how illogical that argument is…

It is as modern day thinkers make it be, sadly. All to denounce the original Christian Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am referring to the Fundamentalist tradition that Mary had other children,not the traditions of half-brothers,etc,etc. That is my position which I stated I do not read scores of ECF’s declaring Mary gave birth to other children.

No, you do not read scores of ECF saying that Mary had other children. That is true. I understand your view Nicea.

 

[Nicea325]

The Catholic Church did not keep any documents that did not support them. Why would they?

And you know that for a fact? Present the ancient empirical evidence supporting such a claim? Tell us the periods these records were not kept/destroyed during the past 2,000?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, you do not read scores of ECF saying that Mary had other children. That is true. I understand your view Nicea.

Why not show us the earliest writings of ‘Christians’ professing the belief that Mary definitely had other children, even if those writings are after the ‘great suppression’ of truth?

Edited to add: This request is very on topic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yet the Bible itself was in the sole possession of the Church that took liberties with truth with this great suppression of truth? You have to see how illogical that argument is…

It is as modern day thinkers make it be, sadly.

I do not think it was a great suppression at all. Time took care of most of it. Really, in my estimation, word of mouth and legends are not any great conspiracy. People always inflate and rarely conflate stories. Its actually understandable. They held her, understandably, in very high esteem.
On another related matter, I do believe some people attempted to take from scripture but that is sustained from the facts. The two different major streams, majority and criticial text, disagree enough that I personally think that was intentional. Something that, whether I like it or not, liberals like Crossan and Ehrman agree. I do not think the church dropped whole sections on purpose.
I think in all liklihood, so few people could read it would be unlikely to see some kind of grand conspiracy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not think it was a great suppression at all. Time took care of most of it. Really, in my estimation, word of mouth and legends are not any great conspiracy. People always inflate and rarely conflate stories. Its actually understandable. They held her, understandably, in very high esteem.
On another related matter, I do believe some people attempted to take from scripture but that is sustained from the facts. The two different major streams, majority and criticial text, disagree enough that I personally think that was intentional. Something that, whether I like it or not, liberals like Crossan and Ehrman agree. I do not think the church dropped whole sections on purpose.
I think in all liklihood, so few people could read it would be unlikely to see some kind of grand conspiracy.

Respond to the question in post 94.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why not show us the earliest writings of ‘Christians’ professing the belief that Mary definitely had other children, even if those writings are after the ‘great suppression’ of truth?

They cannot be found. What can be found are first found a hundred years later. In the protoevangelium stating they are the sons of Joseph. When people started adding legends about Joseph, they dropped that and started the cousin theory. That traces at least two hundred years after the fact! A long long time for this legend to gain some ground.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not think it was a great suppression at all. Time took care of most of it. Really, in my estimation, word of mouth and legends are not any great conspiracy. People always inflate and rarely conflate stories. Its actually understandable. They held her, understandably, in very high esteem.
On another related matter, I do believe some people attempted to take from scripture but that is sustained from the facts. The two different major streams, majority and criticial text, disagree enough that I personally think that was intentional. Something that, whether I like it or not, liberals like Crossan and Ehrman agree. I do not think the church dropped whole sections on purpose.
I think in all liklihood, so few people could read it would be unlikely to see some kind of grand conspiracy.

So information was being discarded/destroyed and all of a sudden people being able to read popped up before anything else could be done to maintain ‘false doctrines’? What a conspiracy! You should send it to the conspiracy channel, I mean history channel.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Never said the Vatican destroyed anything…just to be accurate. It seems that some hold to a large conspiracy. Obviously not. Time took care of that. The theory that people added legends and myths around people they cared about is quite plausible.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They cannot be found. What can be found are first found a hundred years later. In the protoevangelium stating they are the sons of Joseph. When people started adding legends about Joseph, they dropped that and started the cousin theory. That traces at least two hundred years after the fact! A long long time for this legend to gain some ground.

Oh, sorry you’re not understanding the specific question.

Show us the first writings, on record, stating Mary definitely had other children.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So information was being discarded/destroyed and all of a sudden people being able to read popped up before anything else could be done to maintain ‘false doctrines’? What a conspiracy! You should send it to the conspiracy channel, I mean history channel.

Not what I stated. We have developing legends. That is just fact. No one calls them cousins, but half brothers, until legends about Joseph took hold. Then we get this cousin theory

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Never said the Vatican destroyed anything…just to be accurate. It seems that some hold to a large conspiracy. Obviously not. Time took care of that. The theory that people added legends and myths around people they cared about is quite plausible.

Like for instance, we have to say Mary definitely had other children, or else the Catholics are right?

 

[Rightlydivide]

And you know that for a fact? Present the ancient empirical evidence supporting such a claim? Tell us the periods these records were not kept/destroyed during the past 2,000?

You asked me to prove negative Nicea.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They cannot be found. What can be found are first found a hundred years later. In the protoevangelium stating they are the sons of Joseph. When people started adding legends about Joseph, they dropped that and started the cousin theory. That traces at least two hundred years after the fact! A long long time for this legend to gain some ground.

Nothing but your personal speculation.

Scripture doesn’t say Mary had other children. Tradition doesn’t say it. So why do YOU insist on saying it?

Why is it so important to you to insist on Mary’s having children other than Jesus when Scripture doesn’t say it, and when the Christian teachings do not say it?

Why is it so important to try to tell Catholic AND ORTHODOX CHristians they’re ‘wrong’ according to YOU (but not Scripture or tradition?)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not what I stated. We have developing legends. That is just fact. No one calls them cousins, but half brothers, until legends about Joseph took hold. Then we get this cousin theory

Show us the first writings, on record, stating Mary definitely had other children.