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

[Prodigal_Son1]

I understand Ambrose said similar things, but I’ll let you track that down yourself.

You swing out of the topic to continue pushing your point, which really appears to be to use whatever necessary to denounce Catholicism, even if it means sullying Mary or Jesus’ relationship to His mother. What did John Chrysostom say about the other ‘children’, you claim Mary had? That is the topic of discussion and the specific belief I have requested you show existed through the years, even in those ‘other’ places you mentioned in the other ‘Mary’ thread.

Staying on topic, below please find what Ambrose said on this subject.

Ambrose of Milan

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

 

[Radical]

You swing out of the topic to continue pushing your point, which really appears to be to use whatever necessary to denounce Catholicism, even if it means sullying Mary or Jesus’ relationship to His mother.

this appears to be just more disingenuous whining…you specifically asked about items (a) through (f) that I listed…you whine that I don’t answer your question and then when I answer your question you whine some more.
Prodigal Son1:

Not only has Radical ignored my requests for historical evidence, that has survived the generations to present day, to support the view he has been espousing, he has gone to another thread…of the same topic.

…oh, and when you aren’t whining you are tattling…I can’t see any reason to continue to respond to your posts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

this appears to be just more disingenuous whining…you specifically asked about items (a) through (f) that I listed…you whine that I don’t answer your question and then when I answer your question you whine some more.

…oh, and when you aren’t whining you are tattling…I can’t see any reason to continue to respond to your posts.

I still fail to see where you provide evidence of the belief of Mary having other children existing through the years, which is the topic of the thread. Instead, it appears to be a smokescreen of making personal statements, and excuses of why we don’t need to go any further. That speaks for itself.

 

[panevino]

.posted by radical
…This doesn’t sound like any modern Catholic description of Christ’s relationship with Mary. Can the modern (conservative) Catholic envision that any one could be more blessed than Mary?..

…

Later Jesus says the following…
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?..
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Can any Christian believe that Jesus denied and disrespected his mother publicly, before commanding that all honor their mother and father, as part of attaining eternal life? The answer has to honestly be no.
Even if He thought Something was up. Tertullian always reads to me as a little “all over the place” I need to read his view on this point and his refutation of those who Use *this verse identify a denial thus denying true flesh…
I’ll get back to u.

Regard ing luke 11:28 , I cant find the word “more” in the greek provided for the verse in biblos.com, only the word “rather” —
μενοῦν menoun 3304

Different translations have the verse slightly different*
The majority (biblos.com) do not include the word “more”
Neither does tertullian … He excludes it from the quotation marks in your extract. (assuming your extract is accurate)

Catholic commentary on Luke 11:28 clearly understands that Jesus is saying that the physical relationship to him is secondary to the spiritual relationship. This does not deny Luke 1:48 or 1:28

See note from NAB , USCCB
usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke11.htm#foot9
8 [27-28] The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.

Ignatius catholic study bible…(will look this up)

Ignatius study bible considers the verse in a very similar way as above

Ie spiritual relationship (ie hear and do it) over the physical family relationship
It is a positive statement*
in that sense it is fine for a Catholic to even use the word “more” blessed(where the word “more” pits a mere physical blood relationship over the other)
Mary fits both relationships and His statement,as argued by tertullian, does not deny the physical relationship
(while he may accuse her of vainglory…still need to read) there is no way , I’d say he denies her spiritual relationship.
No way for sure right?
She was at Pentecost right and the cross.
So if *he is not denying a spiritual or physical relationship
What would the word "more " relate to

I think it’s clearly not “more” than Mary His mother.
But a level of blessedness effected *by either a
Biological or spiritual relationships

In other words its not a winding down of Mary"'s importance but a lifting of a spiritual relationship.

Reading a denigration of marys spiritual relationship
Is a clouded view of the verse I think.

 

[panevino]

I only have time to respond to your last post now…a larger portion of that passage reads (with emphasis added by me):

Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, …

…Tertullian argued that by denying his mother, Jesus was not denying that he went through a physical birth…but note what Tertullian also said (now in bold):

a) Jesus, in indignation, denied Mary
b) Jesus censured Mary’s fault
c) Mary was denied by Jesus
d) Mary was abjured by Jesus
e) Jesus preferred to think of his believers (the Church) as his mother (as opposed to Mary)
f) hearers of the word were more blessed than Mary

This doesn’t sound like any modern Catholic description of Christ’s relationship with Mary. Can the modern (conservative) Catholic envision that any one could be more blessed than Mary? Can the modern conservative Catholic imagine that Christ denied, abjured or censured Mary?

An extract of your extract

…**Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. **How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others **not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, **He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours’for God’s work. …

This is different
While he says a lot of other stuff (which I’d say is muddied by an effort to combat others claims of a refutation of mother and blood relationship) he here at least points to a reason for Jesus words that do not really point to a objection to marys faithfulness but rather thier “importune” interruption .

Again from your extract
Ie
…or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work?..​

 

[placido]

f) hearers of the word were more blessed than Mary

I read and re-read Luke chapter one and my conclusion is that Mary was indeed hearer of the word … she said to be “blessed among women”. Yet Radical fails to see that one.