Jesus had brothers??????

[guanophore]

i think i’m just to dense to go through this the way i think Tom wants to.
Where is he going with this? What point will be proven up to verese 31?

That nothing in the conversation in any way indicates that she will not conceive after the manner of all women, by a man. Especially since she is betrothed. It is great news to hear she will have a firstborn son! What reason would she have to believe it would not occur “naturally” the way all other sons are made?

 

[guanophore]

i reject this for the mere fact that the scriptures in its plain sense makes sense to believe Jesus had other sibblings by Mary. Secondly the catholic church has backed itself into a corner with this for wanting to protect Mary as being some kind of ever virgin. If Mary had other children by natural means it would have no impact on any doctrine of the faith.

I will urge you to examine the Orthodox beliefs about Mary. They recieved the same teaching from the Apostles, and have no love lost on Rome or Catholic doctrinal development theology.

i’m begining to think that catholics have special powers over everyone else and that is to ability to read minds across the internet. i wish i had this ability to.

You could start by learning how to role play, then you can work your way into it! It involves understanding the source of others comments, and it helps if you can put yourself in their shoes and get into their mindset. However, you are either unwilling or unable to do this to understand Mary’s interaction with the angel.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
i think i’m just to dense to go through this the way i think Tom wants to.
Where is he going with this? What point will be proven up to verese 31?

guanophore
That nothing in the conversation in any way indicates that she will not conceive after the manner of all women, by a man. Especially since she is betrothed. It is great news to hear she will have a firstborn son! What reason would she have to believe it would not occur “naturally” the way all other sons are made?

If you go on to read verse 35 which says:
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is clear evidence that this was not going to be the normal way.

Would you agree?

 

[guanophore]

For a married women not to have sexual relations with her husband was totally unheard of. The context of the message from the angel dealt only with the birth of Jesus that He must be born of a virgin. Nowhere in this passage do you see Him or anyone else forbidding Mary to have children by Joseph. You are reading catholic doctrine into the scriptures rather than letting the scriptures speak clearly.
The idea of an ever virgin married woman is totally alien to the Scriptures. People who married were expected to have children and lots of them.

Ok, maybe we are getting somewhere even without role play. I wouldn’t say “totally unheard of”, but certainly not common. there were those that lived celibate religious lives, like Simeon and Anna in the temple. But, you are right, there was no reason for Mary to expect, since she was betrothed, that she would not have her Son in the usual way.

I agree, people who were married were expected to have children. They also considered them a blessing from God, and those that did not have them were considered not in favor with God.

Having sex and children is the norm for married people. This is God’s intention.

Right, right.

Now, given all that, why then do you suppose Mary asked the angel “How can this be?”

They fall short in that there are better explaniations than you give here. We both know that if Mary had children after Jesus was born that would not have nullified the prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin. That had to happen. After He was born there is no restrictions on them to have a full sex life that all married couples have a right and obligation to produce children.

Don’t you ever wonder, ja4, since all this is true about having families and all, why the Church Tradition taught that she was ever virgin? How do you suppose it happened, and why? And why was this believed up until 1500?

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps it would not, but Catholics do not want to hear that Mary had other children because the claim can be proved untrue. Catholics such as us that you see here do not like hearing that Jesus was not an only child any more than you like hearing claims that your uncle had 43 cats, 642 parakeets, 300 wives, and 700 concubines. It simply isn’t true, especially if you have no uncles. We as humans do not like it when we hear untruths proclaimed as truth.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a major way in which Jesus’ having siblings affects the Faith in any way. Perhaps someone else here can.

I think you have made the most important point. It is promoting falsehood, and that is very detrimental to faith. It denies the Apostolic Divine Deposit of Faith, and once you start doing that in one area, the foundation of the faith will crack. It all comes as a whole. You can’t pick and choose.

The other element that comes to mind is that Jesus intended to fulfill all the shadows in the OT. Mary as the pure Ark of the Lord was a vessel set aside for a holy calling, and just as all holy vessels, would not be used for secular purposes. This thinking is not consistent with the patterns we are given of holy vessles in the OT.

 

[guanophore]

The only reliable things we know about her are found in the scriptures. The catholic church is also making a truth claim about her that is not supported by the scriptures.

Given that this is your belief, the question is, why does it concern you at all? Since you say your faith is not affected by Jesus having siblings, then what difference does it make? Why is it so important to you that you keep attacking this element of Catholic doctrine? What do you hope to accomplish?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3251767]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Having sex and children is the norm for married people. This is God’s intention.

guanophore
Right, right.

Now, given all that, why then do you suppose Mary asked the angel “How can this be?”

Mary knew she came from a humble background in the sense that she had not great material wealth etc. Secondly, it seems that she was somehow aware that she was not just talking to your average human. (my speculation). Thirdly, the angel goes on to describe what the Child she was to bear was going to be and the greatness that would follow from that.
I think this shows that she intutively sensed that something was about to happen that was going to be beyond her. I wish we had more to go on. Bear in mind this is speculation on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
They fall short in that there are better explaniations than you give here. We both know that if Mary had children after Jesus was born that would not have nullified the prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin. That had to happen. After He was born there is no restrictions on them to have a full sex life that all married couples have a right and obligation to produce children.

guanophore
Don’t you ever wonder, ja4, since all this is true about having families and all, why the Church Tradition taught that she was ever virgin? How do you suppose it happened, and why? And why was this believed up until 1500?

Good questions and i think there are a number of possiblities. I certainly don’t believe you can get an ever virgin Mary from the scriptures. I would look closely at church history and see how the culture influenced church doctrine and practice. I think its quite possible that in the early centuries the pagan culture was influencing the church especially in practices. Christmas would be one such example of this.

Let me ask you: do you think that catholicism has been influenced by the culture?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
The only reliable things we know about her are found in the scriptures. The catholic church is also making a truth claim about her that is not supported by the scriptures.

guanophore
Given that this is your belief, the question is, why does it concern you at all? Since you say your faith is not affected by Jesus having siblings, then what difference does it make? Why is it so important to you that you keep attacking this element of Catholic doctrine? What do you hope to accomplish?

Does the truth matter to you? Does it matter to you what people believe especially when it comes to the Christian faith?

It matters greatly to me. The Lord Jesus and His apostles were willing to die for the truth. Secondly what people believe impacts how they live and practice.

Do you think some marian devotions go beyond what the catholic church teaches?

 

[cascherman]

justasking,

I have a question. You are putting a lot of time and effort in attempting to prove Catholics wrong on this subject. Is it because you do not want Jesus to not have brothers or is it because it is a Catholic belief and in some way or another you feel you have an obligation to disagree?

I’ve skimmed this thread, and no one on either side has conceded any points and the general debate has not gone anywhere. So one would think that you don’t have enough evidence to prove they were Jesus’ genuine half-brothers and we don’t have enough valid-to-you evidence to prove that he had no half-brothers.

Right?

 

[justasking4]

justasking,

I have a question. You are putting a lot of time and effort in attempting to prove Catholics wrong on this subject. Is it because you do not want Jesus to not have brothers or is it because it is a Catholic belief and in some way or another you feel you have an obligation to disagree?

I’ve skimmed this thread, and no one on either side has conceded any points and the general debate has not gone anywhere. So one would think that you don’t have enough evidence to prove they were Jesus’ genuine half-brothers and we don’t have enough valid-to-you evidence to prove that he had no half-brothers.

Right?

What better place to discuss such matters as this. Whether someone changes their minds i don’t know. Discussions like this can help people to “fine-tune” what they believe or leave in frustration. I have tried to present the opposing view and i’m sure some think i’m nuts or worse…

 

[guanophore]

That still does not mean Mary took such a vow. Please answer my question where in the passage Mary is supposedly taking a vow that she would be a virgin all her life?

Not so. The ball is in your court now. Just show me the specific passage where Mary makes a life long vow to be a virgin.

Can you think of any other good reason she would ask the angel “how can this be, since I do not know a man”?

Get a greek lexicon of the NT and see what the words mean in context. Even the plain reading of probably any translation i know of says these are the brothers and sisters of Jesus and not cousins.

The context of the words is the Catholic church, which wrote the scripture, and everything in it is consistent with Catholic Teaching, which is from the Apostles. They taught us that Jesus was the only Son of Mary.

However, I accept that you reject Tradition as a source, and that is ok. What confuses me is, why does this bother you so much? Why not just accept that persons from the Apostolic Traditions believe things that you can’t find in your bible, and move on? Why do you rankle on this every single thread that it comes up?

Not so. For example; when brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother it means actual blood brothers etc. See Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; and Luke 14:26 to name just a few passage the clearly demonstrate Jesus did have actual blood brothers and sisters by Mary and Joseph.

I cannot believe that we are doing this again, ja4. However, in the chance that you really may learn, I will respond to this.

There is nothing in Matt. 13/ mk 6:3 that indicates that these people are not offspring of Joseph from a previous marriage.

Lk 14:26 is not about Jesus siblings. He is talking to the disciples about their attitude of detachment.

i already am. You need to deal with this above and not just dimiss it out of hand. Get a Greek lexicon of the NT and look these words up and you find what i mean.

The same word is used all over the NT and Septuagint to refer to relatives who are not siblings. That doesnj’t help much. this is the same word Paul uses in his speeches when he says “brothers and fathers” and none of them are his relatives by blood.

 

[guanophore]

If you go on to read verse 35 which says:
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is clear evidence that this was not going to be the normal way.

Would you agree?

Of course, but you are getting ahead of the story. The story is told in the order that it happened. I wonder if you are just trying to quickly gloss over this, so that you don’t have to deal with the implications of the question?

 

[guanophore]

Mary knew she came from a humble background in the sense that she had not great material wealth etc. Secondly, it seems that she was somehow aware that she was not just talking to your average human. (my speculation). Thirdly, the angel goes on to describe what the Child she was to bear was going to be and the greatness that would follow from that. I think this shows that she intutively sensed that something was about to happen that was going to be beyond her. I wish we had more to go on. Bear in mind this is speculation on my part.

But accurate speculations, I think. So, it is you contention that she was not asking how she was going to get pregnant, but just being amazed by the message in general?

Good questions and i think there are a number of possiblities. I certainly don’t believe you can get an ever virgin Mary from the scriptures.

Personally, I don’t either. I can see how the seeds of it are inthere, but were it not for the Sacred Tradition, I think it would be really hard. As you have shown, it is very easy to interpret the language in a manner other than what was passed down to us by the Apostles.

I would look closely at church history and see how the culture influenced church doctrine and practice. I think its quite possible that in the early centuries the pagan culture was influencing the church especially in practices. Christmas would be one such example of this.

Well, I hope you do look closely at church history, as you have said you are doing. However, I think it is the other way around. I think the Church was influencing the Pagan culture. In fact, the Church made a deliberate attempt to trump all the major Pagan festivals with feasts of Saints. It is part of storming the gates of hell.

However, what particular Pagan practice do you think might have pursuaded those in the Apostolic succession to change what the Apostles handed down to them? How was Mary being ever -virgin a reflection of Pagan practice?

Let me ask you: do you think that catholicism has been influenced by the culture?

Very little. That is one of the main complaints about the Church, that she is too “stodgy”, slow to change and catch up to the “times”. I am sure some new developments will come out in response to our culture of death regarding eugenics, euthanasia, etc. This probably belongs on another thread. I think it is hard for you to discern the difference between the Church herself, as the Holy and Pure Bride of Christ, incapable of error, and the people who are a part of her, most of whom reflect culture a great deal. However, that is off topic here.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3252025]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If you go on to read verse 35 which says:
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

This is clear evidence that this was not going to be the normal way.

Would you agree?

guanophore
Of course, but you are getting ahead of the story. The story is told in the order that it happened. I wonder if you are just trying to quickly gloss over this, so that you don’t have to deal with the implications of the question?

Implication of what question? Keep in mind that we must keep the entire passage in contexxt which goes beyond verse 34.
So any answer to this “implication” question must be in harmony with the passage and the rest of scripture on this issue.

 

[guanophore]

Does the truth matter to you? Does it matter to you what people believe especially when it comes to the Christian faith?

You are answering my question with a question. I asked you why this was important to you, and you respond with a question about truth. I will assume from this that your answer is that your desire and interest in this matter is to teach the truth to Catholics. Your truth is only what you can see in the Bible, and since you see that Mary had other children, this is the truth that you want to show us, is that right?

It matters greatly to me. The Lord Jesus and His apostles were willing to die for the truth. Secondly what people believe impacts how they live and practice.

Exactly! This is what has me so puzzled! You believe that the doctrine that Mary Ever-Virgin is not true, yet, you keep coming here entering discussion about something you believe is false? Why would spending so much time focusing on a falsehood impact your life and practice?

The only thing I can think of is that you believe it is your life and practice to teach Catholics that their doctrines are false. Are you following this line of reasoning? Perhaps, if I am wrong about you, then you can satisfy my curiosity with a better answer.

Do you think some marian devotions go beyond what the catholic church teaches?

I think that is off topic in this thread.

What better place to discuss such matters as this. Whether someone changes their minds i don’t know. Discussions like this can help people to “fine-tune” what they believe or leave in frustration. I have tried to present the opposing view and i’m sure some think i’m nuts or worse…

I think this answers my question above. You wish to propose an non-Catholic point of view, and hope that people reading it will change their minds.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3251964]

Originally Posted by justasking4
That still does not mean Mary took such a vow. Please answer my question where in the passage Mary is supposedly taking a vow that she would be a virgin all her life?

Not so. The ball is in your court now. Just show me the specific passage where Mary makes a life long vow to be a virgin.

guanophore
Can you think of any other good reason she would ask the angel “how can this be, since I do not know a man”?

Yes. What the angel had just told her was way beyond her means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Get a greek lexicon of the NT and see what the words mean in context. Even the plain reading of probably any translation i know of says these are the brothers and sisters of Jesus and not cousins.

guanophore
The context of the words is the Catholic church, which wrote the scripture, and everything in it is consistent with Catholic Teaching, which is from the Apostles. They taught us that Jesus was the only Son of Mary.

The context i’m referring to is what is found in the passage itself. The scriptures don’t teach that Jesus was Mary’s only son.

However, I accept that you reject Tradition as a source, and that is ok.

This is one of the great mysteries out here. I’m still trying figure out exactly what it is. I have only about 4 examples of it so far and i’m wondering if there are more. i can’t get a straight answer.

What confuses me is, why does this bother you so much? Why not just accept that persons from the Apostolic Traditions believe things that you can’t find in your bible, and move on? Why do you rankle on this every single thread that it comes up?

Because of the truth. i want to see if knowledgeable catholics know what is the basis for it in scripture and history. Maybe i’m missing something but i have yet to see any solid support for it in scripture or history. Secondly i would think you and others would find this discussion profitable and give you a chance to defend it. From what i have seen so far the defense of it has not been that good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. For example; when brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother it means actual blood brothers etc. See Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; and Luke 14:26 to name just a few passage the clearly demonstrate Jesus did have actual blood brothers and sisters by Mary and Joseph.

guanophore
I cannot believe that we are doing this again, ja4. However, in the chance that you really may learn, I will respond to this.

There is nothing in Matt. 13/ mk 6:3 that indicates that these people are not offspring of Joseph from a previous marriage.

Huh? The plain reading of the text should lead you to believe these offspring are from them both. The exception woudl be yours and there is not even a hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married. If you have such evidence then you might have something to stand on.

Lk 14:26 is not about Jesus siblings. He is talking to the disciples about their attitude of detachment.

That is true. However it is an example how the words brother and sisters is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i already am. You need to deal with this above and not just dimiss it out of hand. Get a Greek lexicon of the NT and look these words up and you find what i mean.

guanophore
The same word is used all over the NT and Septuagint to refer to relatives who are not siblings. That doesnj’t help much. this is the same word Paul uses in his speeches when he says “brothers and fathers” and none of them are his relatives by blood.

Would you happen to have a lexiconal source for this?

 

[guanophore]

Yes. What the angel had just told her was way beyond her means.

So, you believe the reason she asked “how can this be, since I know not a man” was really an exlamation with regard to the Messianic prophesy?

The context i’m referring to is what is found in the passage itself. The scriptures don’t teach that Jesus was Mary’s only son.

You are glossing over the conversation ja4, I think because you cannot allow the possiblitity that Catholic Tradition may have some basis in scripture.

This is one of the great mysteries out here. I’m still trying figure out exactly what it is. I have only about 4 examples of it so far and i’m wondering if there are more. i can’t get a straight answer.

I think you will not have an answer to this because you do not believe. Belief can seek understanding, but unbelief resists understanding. Especially when it pertains to the Mysteries of God.

Because of the truth. i want to see if knowledgeable catholics know what is the basis for it in scripture and history.

And what would be your motive for that, ja4? why on earth would it matter to you whether or not Catholics know the source of their belief?

Maybe i’m missing something but i have yet to see any solid support for it in scripture or history.

You are missing some things. There are 2000 years of history of the Church believing that Mary was ever virgin. And this idea was never disputed for 1500 years. Even the reformers believed this. Why would Luther, who invented the whole SS doctrine,still espouse this? Is it your contention that he, too, was influenced by Paganism?

Secondly i would think you and others would find this discussion profitable and give you a chance to defend it. From what i have seen so far the defense of it has not been that good.

I do not find your constant tearing at the Teachings of the Catholic faith a pleasant experience at all. However, I have made a commitment.

Huh? The plain reading of the text should lead you to believe these offspring are from them both. The exception woudl be yours and there is not even a hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married. If you have such evidence then you might have something to stand on.

That is the whole point, ja4. How did the church happen to believe this? When it seems that the plain text says otherwise, how is it that the Church has persisted in this belief for 2000years?

Why did the Church allow these passages into the NT if they understood it to contradict tradition, as you do?

Would you ha ppen to have a lexiconal source for this?

I am using Strongs

 

[cascherman]

What better place to discuss such matters as this. Whether someone changes their minds i don’t know. Discussions like this can help people to “fine-tune” what they believe or leave in frustration. I have tried to present the opposing view and i’m sure some think i’m nuts or worse…

So you are disagreeing so we can have a sounding board to ‘practice’ on? Do you not actually disagree then?

But really, what does it mean to you that Mary may have been a virgin her whole life? It does not really affect any common protestant theology.

But, on the subject of Mary’s virginity, I will try to appeal to your logic and/or common sense of God. God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, chose Mary to be an ideal vessel to hold Jesus (God the Son) in her womb. She literally grew God in human form in her body. After having birthed God, how much sense would it make to then taint a God given gift by becoming pregnant and birthing a imperfect and sinful human being? In the same uterus that housed God for 9 months.

Or, put yourself in Mary’s position. There are human beings NOW that stay unmarried and virgin their whole lives just to devote their every day to God. Now that you are imagining yourself in Mary’s position, would you have another child or would you be content with having birthed God, and devote your body to him for the rest of your life?

Just wondering.

 

[Good_Fella]

Get a greek lexicon of the NT and see what the words mean in context. Even the plain reading of probably any translation i know of says these are the brothers and sisters of Jesus and not cousins.

There are several versions by different authors, so I have no idea whom you are referring to. Before any of us can respond to your abstract assertion, it would help if you specifically tell us what you mean and cite your particular source. Meanwhile, what you’ve said so far has no substance whatsoever.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
{Songs 4, 12}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Schabel]

Mary knew she came from a humble background in the sense that she had not great material wealth etc. Secondly, it seems that she was somehow aware that she was not just talking to your average human. (my speculation). Thirdly, the angel goes on to describe what the Child she was to bear was going to be and the greatness that would follow from that.
I think this shows that she intutively sensed that something was about to happen that was going to be beyond her. I wish we had more to go on. Bear in mind this is speculation on my part.

So, let me get this straight: you’re basing your beliefs on speculation about things NOT recorded in scripture.

Strange, very strange, especially for a sola scriptura believer.

You also believe that Mary had some anticipatory knowledge about what the Angel was going to say before he said it?

Stranger still. ESPECIALLY since it’s not even hinted at in scripture.