Jesus had brothers??????

[justasking4]

Tim Kirchoff;3166352]You still don’t get it?!?

If MAry had expected to have relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the question she asked. Period. End of story. Her question only makes sense if she had no intention of having relations with Joseph. She asked that question, however. There is only on explanation- that she never intended to have relations with Joseph.

If you still don’t understand…

Here is what the New American Bible (catholic Bible) says about this verse in Luke 1:34–[34] Mary’s questioning response is a denial of sexual relations and is used by Luke to lead to the angel’s declaration about the Spirit’s role in the conception of this child (Luke 1:35). According to Luke, the virginal conception of Jesus takes place through the holy Spirit, the power of God, and therefore Jesus has a unique relationship to Yahweh: he is Son of God.

Notice it says nothing about your assertion that “she never intended to have relations with Joseph.”
You are reading far more into this text that is warranted.

And as for that last question. it should be the other way around. If Mary had not intended to have relations with Joseph before the Annunciation, why would that change after Jesus was born?

It would change because sexual relationships between husband and wives is a very good thing and something God blessed.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Here is what the New American Bible (catholic Bible) says about this verse in Luke 1:34–[34] Mary’s questioning response is a denial of sexual relations and is used by Luke to lead to the angel’s declaration about the Spirit’s role in the conception of this child (Luke 1:35). According to Luke, the virginal conception of Jesus takes place through the holy Spirit, the power of God, and therefore Jesus has a unique relationship to Yahweh: he is Son of God.

Notice it says nothing about your assertion that “she never intended to have relations with Joseph.”
You are reading far more into this text that is warranted.

It would change because sexual relationships between husband and wives is a very good thing and something God blessed.

The angel says, “You will become pregnant.” That’s in the future tense. For all she knows, it’s thirty years from then that the angel’s talking about. Yet she still asks how this is going to happen. This clearly points toward the idea that she had no expectations of having sex with Joseph at any time in the future.

 

[sterryfamily]

Hello??!!

Did any one read my post?

This pastor is not teaching error! The Catholic Church agrees with him!

Although the Protoevangelium of James is one possible explanantion, the Church has not made a dogmatic definition and allows for other possible explanations. One is simply that the ones referred to as the “bretheren” of the Lord are simply distant male relatives. See catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

However, I believe the issue with the OP is that this particular pastor’s contention was not that Jesus had step brothers by Joseph, but that he had half brothers by Mary and Joseph.

 

[sterryfamily]

Here is what the New American Bible (catholic Bible) says about this verse in Luke 1:34–[34] Mary’s questioning response is a denial of sexual relations and is used by Luke to lead to the angel’s declaration about the Spirit’s role in the conception of this child (Luke 1:35). According to Luke, the virginal conception of Jesus takes place through the holy Spirit, the power of God, and therefore Jesus has a unique relationship to Yahweh: he is Son of God.

Notice it says nothing about your assertion that “she never intended to have relations with Joseph.”
You are reading far more into this text that is warranted.

It would change because sexual relationships between husband and wives is a very good thing and something God blessed.

Mary was dedicated in the temple at a young age and vowed a life of virginity.

Why do YOU suppose she asked, “How shall this be done?” You think she was a dumb country girl who doesn’t understand how pregnancy is accomplished?

 

[sterryfamily]

Church Tradition has always upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity. Every bishopric in every corner of the globe upheld her perpetual virginity as a teaching which was handed down by the apostles and passed down throughout all of Christian history.

Even the fathers of the protestant reformation upheld her perpetual virginity. The ideas to the contrarty are novel - new inventions of men who want to make up their own religions in opposition to Christ’s Church.

 

[Gamera]

The context indicates that she had no sexual relations with a man up to this point in time with the angel. Correct?

Where in the passage is there any indication she was to remain a virgin throughout the marriage? Where does she specifically vow this?

I would agree that Joseph would not have engaged in sexual relations before Jesus was born. However after He was born there is no reason to think they did not resume normal sexual relations.

Your position seems internally inconsistent. Under your view, why wouldn’t Mary and Joseph have engaged in sexual relations while she was pregnant with Jesus – since, according to you, it would have been “wholesome” and “blessed” and “normal” for them to do so as a married couple?

Even though it’s normal and blessed and wholesome for other married couples to have sex during pregnancy, you are making an exception for Mary and Joseph during the nine months in which Mary was pregnant with Jesus, aren’t you?

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3166439]Mary was dedicated in the temple at a young age and vowed a life of virginity.

Where in Scripture do you get this is idea? It says nothing about this.

Why do YOU suppose she asked, “How shall this be done?” You think she was a dumb country girl who doesn’t understand how pregnancy is accomplished?

She understood how pregancies happen no doubt. However something else is going on.

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;3166480]Your position seems internally inconsistent. Under your view, why wouldn’t Mary and Joseph have engaged in sexual relations while she was pregnant with Jesus – since, according to you, it would have been “wholesome” and “blessed” and “normal” for them to do so as a married couple?

If we take the prophecy at its face value then it seems no sexual relations would have happened during her pregnancy in fulfillment of the prophecy.

Gamera
Even though it’s normal and blessed and wholesome for other married couples to have sex during pregnancy, you are making an exception for Mary and Joseph during the nine months in which Mary was pregnant with Jesus, aren’t you?

In a sense yes because of the prophecy that states He would be born of a virgin.
After the birth of Jesus there would be no prohibition for them not to engage in sexual relations since the prophecy would have been fulfilled.

 

[justasking4]

Church Tradition has always upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity. Every bishopric in every corner of the globe upheld her perpetual virginity as a teaching which was handed down by the apostles and passed down throughout all of Christian history.

Even the fathers of the protestant reformation upheld her perpetual virginity. The ideas to the contrarty are novel - new inventions of men who want to make up their own religions in opposition to Christ’s Church.

Since you are familar with the fathers, didn’t some of them think she did have other children?

 

[sterryfamily]

Where in Scripture do you get this is idea? It says nothing about this.

She understood how pregancies happen no doubt. However something else is going on.

It’s not from Scripture - it’s from that other part of Sacred Tradition you have such a problem with.

What else is going on? Why doesn’t she understand how “this” shall be done?

 

[sterryfamily]

Since you are familar with the fathers, didn’t some of them think she did have other children?

I don’t know. It’s possible some of them questioned it.

 

[sterryfamily]

If we take the prophecy at its face value then it seems no sexual relations would have happened during her pregnancy in fulfillment of the prophecy.

In a sense yes because of the prophecy that states He would be born of a virgin.
After the birth of Jesus there would be no prohibition for them not to engage in sexual relations since the prophecy would have been fulfilled.

How does sex during pregnancy (or lack thereof) effect a miraculous, virginal conception?

 

[LauraSings]

It is a true story. This pastor is not a priest. I’m sorry if I may have misled you guys. It comes from a non-denominal pastor. I don’t want to give out his church.

One thing to note is that a number of ancient languages, and even some modern ones (Thai, for instance) does not have a separate word for “cousins.” A “brother” might be your parents’ other offspring, or the offspring of another very close relative.

I had a terrible time, teaching ESL, explaining what a cousin is to one of my students, originally from Thailand.

So - I believe Aramaic is one of those languages that doesn’t have a distinction. This is why Protestants justify their opposition to the perpetual virginity of Mary - they really don’t know any better.

Pray for them, and be ready to explain what you can, whenever you are called upon to do so!

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

The angel says, “You will become pregnant.” That’s in the future tense. For all she knows, it’s thirty years from then that the angel’s talking about. Yet she still asks how this is going to happen. This clearly points toward the idea that she had no expectations of having sex with Joseph at any time in the future.

 

[wisdomseeker]

How do we know it was 12 years? I thought Herod only lived 4 years after Jesus’ birth? But still, you make an excellent point.

i assumed this because of Jesus being found in the temple teaching. was not him 12yrs old? isnt that when we hear about Jesus for the first time since he left to egypt?

 

[Good_Fella]

Since you are familar with the fathers, didn’t some of them think she did have other children?

None of the Church Fathers of the Patristic period questioned or taught Mary had other children. The only Christians who ever contended this were heretics like Helvidius. He was immediately rebuked by the Church. It wasn’t until the 19th century with the rise of Protestant fundamentalism, which has no connection with the historic Christian faith, that the heresy of Helvidius resurfaced in widespread fashion.

All the Church Fathers understood and wrote that Mary was a virgin throughout her entire life, beginning with Ignatius of Antioch, an acquaintance of John the Evangelist, who spoke of Mary’s virginity (not virgin birth) as being hidden from the world, according to Origen. The explicit teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity, according to extant literature, first appears in the early third century with Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria. These Fathers continued teaching this traditional belief they understood was held by Ignatius and Justin Martyr in the second century. No one noticeably questioned or challenged the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity in the second century, which explains why in this period we don’t find the writings that we do in the third and fourth centuries.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3166645]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where in Scripture do you get this is idea? It says nothing about this.

She understood how pregancies happen no doubt. However something else is going on.
sterryfamily;
It’s not from Scripture - it’s from that other part of Sacred Tradition you have such a problem with.

I would think you would also have a problem with it to. Since Scripture is the only thing that tells us anything about Mary, what is the origin of this belief in Sacred Tradition?

What else is going on? Why doesn’t she understand how “this” shall be done?

I suspect it was totally out of her expierence that she had nothing to compare it with.

 

[justasking4]

sterryfamily;3166663]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If we take the prophecy at its face value then it seems no sexual relations would have happened during her pregnancy in fulfillment of the prophecy.

In a sense yes because of the prophecy that states He would be born of a virgin.
After the birth of Jesus there would be no prohibition for them not to engage in sexual relations since the prophecy would have been fulfilled.
sterryfamily
How does sex during pregnancy (or lack thereof) effect a miraculous, virginal conception?

i don’t know. However the Scriptures had to be fulfilled this way in order for Christ to come into the world.

 

[guanophore]

i didn’t say it was. However it is a source of scholarship or those who should know the Scriptures well to interpret them.

Our interpretation of the Scriptures is based on Revelation through Jesus Christ, who is the Author of those Scriptures. Catholics don’t nterpret them according to scholarship. Basing interpretation on revelation does not exclude scholarship, but it does give primacy to what has been revealed. If scholarship is in opposition to what God has revealed, then there is an error in the scholarship.

I’m saying doctrines should be grounded in the Scriptures.

This is only the case with the Sola Scriptura error. Christian doctrines are grounded in the Teaching of Christ.

What passages regarding Mary are explicit about her immaculate conception and assumption?

Don’t fall for this, Ephel Duath. ja4 has already made up his mind that none of the Marian doctrines can be supported by scripure. If you do a search on his threads, Catholics have been over this and over this with him. He believes that the Church teachings spring from false teachers and are not biblically based:

However what i don’t see catholic doing is holding their church accountable for its teachings. The Scriptures are clear that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. That has happened in the catholic church. It has some truth but it also has errors.

He rejects Apostolic Sacred Tradition as “speculations of men”:

I suppose this might be one possiblity but there really are no facts to back this up. Rather there was plenty of time for the apostles to think of her in her relationship to Christ and never drew the conclusions that the catholic church does about her.

"justasking4:

There is a lot of evil in the history of the catholic church. Even up to this day.

If you want to speak about myths thats what we have with the doctrine that Mary never sinned. Its just cannot be supported by the Scriptures. There are no references to such a thing about her.

"justasking4:

Lets take a couple examples of catholic doctrine and see if it is of the Scriptures or of men. Take Mary’ assumption and being prayed to. Where are these things taught in Scripture? If they are not found in Scripture then they must be the traditions of men.

justasking4:

Many of these Traditions have no grounding in the scriptures but are the opinions of men.

Scriptural references to Mary have been gone over with him in great detail, and he still comes out in the same place.

I think making Mary out to be some kind of ark type is not biblical since the Scriptures never do.

His monniker is disingenuine. He is not "justasking’, he is using these questions to try to pursuade Catholics that they have been led into error by false teachers.

 

[Gamera]

Since Scripture is the only thing that tells us anything about Mary, what is the origin of this belief in Sacred Tradition?

This is incorrect. Scripture is not the only thing that tells us anything about Mary. For instance, we know her mother’s name was Anne, not from Scripture but from other contemporaneous writings.