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

[Rightlydivide]

Wasn’t it hard for the ‘earliest Christians’ to recognize all the scriptures of the New Testament, being they consisted of letters and epistles scattered throughout Asia? We have Christian writings that seem to agree with Catholic teachings prior to those letters and epistles being copied, brought together and defined as part of the New Testament canon.

As you say, I understand you disagree but am merely stating ‘historical evidence’.

The only early Christian documents we could discuss are the Didache (with its emphasis on immersion first, churches chosing their own leaders, and lack of words of institution in the Eucharist), Ignatius (interpolated) and…?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Please share with us those writings of the earliest Christians that are opposite of Catholic teachings. Stay on topic if you wish and produce those writings stating that Mary definitely had other children…

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

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

Yet we have records of every heretical action since the beginning?

The fallacy of your argument is, if all the documents were discarded, or destroyed, how did the belief survive 1500 years before the Protestant reformation?

Show us the earliest writings you can possibly find…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

“In an attempt to maintain a belief about Mary” (IOW, the Perpetual Virginity). . .

Please cite your proof for this ASSERTION. Where exactly is the tradition that Jesus HAD BLOOD BROTHERS which these 'other, or ‘different’ traditions supposedly developed away from?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The only early Christian documents we could discuss are the Didache (with its emphasis on immersion first, churches chosing their own leaders, and lack of words of institution in the Eucharist), Ignatius (interpolated) and…?

I saw you refuse to address certain issues because they were ‘off topic’, after getting your point across of course. Now it really seems there is an attempt to sway the discussion.

Show us the earliest Christian writings stating Mary definitely had other Children, no matter what era they come from.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

Oh, THAT old argument. You know. Those pesky ‘THEY’ somehow had an agenda, were able to dupe or suppress all the REAL Christians, and destroyed all the ‘proof’ that existed that things were ever ‘different’. And because we don’t have any documents that say things were ever ‘different’, well hey, that’s the proof the big bad Church destroyed them! The circular conspiracy ‘proof’. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I saw you refuse to address certain issues because they were ‘off topic’, after getting your point across of course. Now it really seems there is an attempt to sway the discussion.

Show us the earliest Christian writings stating Mary definitely had other Children, no matter what era they come from.

Except since these documents don’t exist it is obvious that the Church destroyed them, which is proof they existed . Their non existence is their proof of existence!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh, THAT old argument. You know. Those pesky ‘THEY’ somehow had an agenda, were able to dupe or suppress all the REAL Christians, and destroyed all the ‘proof’ that existed that things were ever ‘different’. And because we don’t have any documents that say things were ever ‘different’, well hey, that’s the proof the big bad Church destroyed them! The circular conspiracy ‘proof’. . .

If the Church had ‘destroyed’ the documents, how did the belief itself continue through hundreds and hundreds of years under suppression?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

The Church kept the Bible through hundreds and hundreds of years, prior to the Protestant reformation, yet Protestant believe it’s against the Church? Too many wrongs in your argument.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Know what else?

If the Catholic Church was going around suppressing teachings (the ones we now call Protestant teachings) and if the Catholic Church was the only thing that was going around with Bibles (in that pesky Latin no less) for 1500 years or so, why on EARTH weren’t the SCRIBES (Bibles being HANDWRITTEN until the printing press) going around fixing the BIBLE, eh?

Why did the Church go to the trouble of supposedly axing all the ‘real Christians’, destroying god knows how many ‘documents’ that supported that ‘real Christianity’, yet even though it had in its SOLE possession the 'Book of Books" never manage to ‘suppress’ or ‘fix’ things in there?

You’d have thought that there would be passages where Jesus says distinctly, “And I will establish YOU, Peter, whose name I am changing, to be the first Pope.” and passages like, “This is my flesh–and I mean real flesh, I’m not speaking symbolically here” and things like "a bishop should be the husband of nobody, I want you priests celibate’ etc. They had 1500 YEARS to play ‘rewrite’ but they didn’t?

Talk about unbelievable. . .

The same people who don’t believe the Catholic Church can teach infallibly on faith and morals because "they’re only men’ trust implicitly in a BOOK assembled by those very same ‘mere men.’

 

[DLG123]

Really??? Please provide the scripture to support your claim. You do know that many of the church fathers did not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, yes?

I must say sorry for not being able to recall who wrote this I copied it from another thread several monthes ago and didn’t get the posters name… That said this is what he/she had tp say in regards to Jesus’ “brothers” Hat tip to who wrote this because it is excellent…

There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels:
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:
Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:
Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:
John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude:
Acts 1:13 “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…” (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:
Jude 1:1 “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…” (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!
Luke 6:15 “and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,” (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

One BIG reason that it is so important that Mary remain undefiled is because she is the fulfillment of the OT Ark of the Covenant. The OT Ark carried symbols of God – Mary carried the REAL thing…

DLG

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Church kept the Bible through hundreds and hundreds of years, prior to the Protestant reformation, yet Protestant believe it’s against the Church? Too many wrongs in your argument.

There are lots of records, not destroyed, where segments of the Catholic Church put together Bibles without all of the books. They attempted to add books like the Shepherd of Hermes for example and remove Revelation, 2nd Peter, John 2 & 3, and other canonical books. However, it was unsuccessful. So actually there is documented history of attempts to add to scripture and delete certain books. In that case, the segments that did were not successful. I am not suggesting that all Catholic Churches attempted that but clearly many did.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The Church kept the Bible through hundreds and hundreds of years, prior to the Protestant reformation, yet Protestant believe it’s against the Church? Too many wrongs in your argument.

I addressed that in my last post. The only other alternative is to believe that the early church did not know or trust John, Peter, and other New Testament writers. No, the most logical conclusion is that divergent parts of your church attempted to remove them. Probably for doctrinal content. Now, lets get back on topic please. Whether you agree or not, I feel have answered enough off topic questions or comments.
Thank you

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are lots of records, not destroyed, where segments of the Catholic Church put together Bibles without all of the books. They attempted to add books like the Shepherd of Hermes for example and remove Revelation, 2nd Peter, John 2 & 3, and other canonical books. However, it was unsuccessful. So actually there is documented history of attempts to add to scripture and delete certain books. In that case, the segments that did were not successful. I am not suggesting that all Catholic Churches attempted that but clearly many did.

All of this took place prior to any definition of the canon?

Also, if the Church practiced ‘destroying’ evidence, why not just change the scriptures themselves, since they were solely under the Church’s possession for 1500 years, prior to the Protestant reformation?

Then there’s that pesky fact that the original reformers believed in the perpetual virginity. Your view is much more modern than you will admit too.

Without evidence, it’s permissible to believe anything imaginable? That’s what it appears you’re asking us to believe…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yet we have records of every heretical action since the beginning?

The fallacy of your argument is, if all the documents were discarded, or destroyed, how did the belief survive 1500 years before the Protestant reformation?

Show us the earliest writings you can possibly find…

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.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There are lots of records, not destroyed, where segments of the Catholic Church put together Bibles without all of the books. They attempted to add books like the Shepherd of Hermes for example and remove Revelation, 2nd Peter, John 2 & 3, and other canonical books. However, it was unsuccessful. So actually there is documented history of attempts to add to scripture and delete certain books. In that case, the segments that did were not successful. I am not suggesting that all Catholic Churches attempted that but clearly many did.

BALDERDASH. You’re attempting to claim that because POSSIBLY some INDIVIDUALS at some UNSPECIFIED TIME were putting together ‘bibles’ without all the books that this means that the WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH altered or destroyed Scripture.

How lame. First you accuse the entire Catholic Church of having engaged in a CRIME (of destroying ‘evidence’), then you bring up some unsupported story of individuals in an attempt to say, "see this proves you have a history of doing those crimes’.

Why not just apologize for the original gaffe of charging us with destroying documents and have done with it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

All of this took place prior to any definition of the canon?

Also, if the Church practiced ‘destroying’ evidence, why not just change the scriptures themselves, since they were solely under the Church’s possession for 1500 years, prior to the Protestant reformation?

Then there’s that pesky fact that the original reformers believed in the perpetual virginity. Your view is much more modern than you will admit too.

Without evidence, it’s permissible to believe anything imaginable? That’s what it appears you’re asking us to believe…

I see no reason to believe the early church did not know the canon. I see nothing in the early church writings to suggest otherwise. A few hundred years later some segments are opposed to certain books and so forth.
They did attempt to change scriptures and take out whole sections. That is what the earliest codices used by the Catholic Church, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, disagree with each other and us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I addressed that in my last post. The only other alternative is to believe that the early church did not know or trust John, Peter, and other New Testament writers. No, the most logical conclusion is that divergent parts of your church attempted to remove them. Probably for doctrinal content. Now, lets get back on topic please. Whether you agree or not, I feel have answered enough off topic questions or comments.
Thank you

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’.

 

[Rightlydivide]

No, well maybe part of it but certainly not all of it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

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’.