Jesus had brothers??????

  • Thread starter Thread starter onmywayagain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now let’s go to the next verse shall we?
After calming her fears the angel continues:
www.drbo.org:
Luke 1,31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb
Any questions? You (thinking as Mary) are engaged to Joseph. Any surprise you’ll conceive? Any reason to doubt the conception would be a result of sexual relations with your husband?
 
Since this topic is about Mary having other children would she ask if its ok to have sexual relations with my husband and have other children?
One may as well be talking to a lamp post with the lamp removed. :banghead:

:cool:
 
Justasking4, we’re only up to item 4, if you’d rather skip #4 for now and continue with the list, we can come back to it?
 
I gotta better ouch than that one!
I’m would think even you have certain qualms about some issues in your church.
"justasking4:
I know catholics accept these things as true. However due to the nature of these sacred traditons and the claims made in regard to them, they really don’t support what the apostles taught. Your church goes far beyond what the apostles taught with so many of its doctrines.
I don’t get tired with this so no need to worry.
"justasking:
Depends what you mean by “prevail”. There is a lot of evil in the history of the catholic church. Even up to this day.
The church does not make the Bible infallible or inerrant. ** The church has always had the scriptures but had chosen to introduce the doctrines of men instead.**
What i see here is that those believe it primarily on the premise that the catholic church claims it so and that is enough. i don’t see most catholics here want to know the truth.
However the catholic church has not fully adhered to this but has introduced doctrines that the apostles never taught. It not about a stumbling block for me but the truth. If study the scriptures and church history you will not find the support for many of the claims made by the Roman Catholic church.
 
Problem with the phrase “full of grace”. A better translation is “highly favored” one.
Actually, no. The original would render something closer to, “you who have been made full of grace.” A past perfect.
 
The only Teaching of Christ we have are the Scriptures which makes Sola Scriptura true.
The Church had the teachings of Christ deposited in Tradition before the New Testament was finally written and compliled by her. Scripture comes from Tradition and is an expression and confirmation of it in literary form. Theophilus certainly had these teachings before Luke decided to write them down:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
{Luke 1, 1-4}

Luke is the first known Christian - a true Catholic - to have drawn a parallel between Mary, the mother of our Lord, and the Ark of the Covenant. By reading the evangelist’s prologue, it is evident that Scripture is not the sole medium of divine revelation. In fact, Tradition preceded Scripture, and so Scripture is infallible only because Tradition is infallible. Luke wrote what the Church had already inerrantly believed and taught. And he wrote the Gospel to confirm the Church’s traditional beliefs and assure the faithful of their veracity. Thus Scripture must always be interpreted in light of Tradition which has been handed down to us by the Apostles, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel - not write it.

“Of this you have already heard through the word of truth, the gospel, that has come to you.”
{1 Colossians 1, 5}

“If I do not find it in the Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospels; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity.”

Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to the Philadelphians’ (c. A.D. 110)

In the spirit of Peter and Paul, Ignatius is referring to the contentions of the Jews who rejected the Church’s traditional beliefs about the Messiah. The early Church drew most of what she understood about the Christ from the Old Testament Scriptures. Of course, the Jews objected to the Church’s interpretations of the Messianic prophecies, as they still do today. Ignatius is telling the Jews that the Church’s traditional beliefs are contained in the Old Testament, only the Scriptures aren’t as explicit and clear as the Jews would like them to be. The proof is there before their eyes, but for some reason the Jews fail to perceive and grasp the evidence. I cite this extract because the situation reminds me of the Protestant contention against the Church’s traditional Marian beliefs and doctrines. As with her Christological doctrines, only the Church has the apostolic authority, conferred by Christ, to interpret Scripture in light of her traditional beliefs and faith. :yup:

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. 😉 Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things (Sounds like a divided Protestantism which can’t agree on the meaning of faith and justification, etc.), as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines (Sola Scriptura for one), and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished in the Lord’s Scriptures.”

In other words, Irenaeus is telling us in his work ‘Against Heresies’ ( A.D. 180 ) that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition - and only by the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Irenaeus is considered by many to be the Church’s first bonafide Mariologist. So that makes him Catholic. 😉

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Justasking has returned, hopefully we can share a diaolouge. We left off at Luke chapter 1 verse 31.
We had already covered Luke 1, 26 – 30:
www.drbo.org:
Luke 1,26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
We’ve discussed the “full of grace” issue, now let’s continue with the following verses shall we?
www.drbo.org:
Luke 1,30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb
Any questions? You (thinking as Mary) are engaged to Joseph. Any surprise you’ll conceive? Any reason to doubt the conception would be a result of sexual relations with your husband?
 
Did not your church condemn this writing as being heritical?
I don’t believe so, they don’t usually “condemn”, they simply don’t embrace and approve. Of course you could argue there are Papal bulls indicating that apocryphal writings are dangerous, and should not be relied upon, but I don’t think that constitutes a condemnation.
 
Did not your church condemn this writing as being heritical?
It’s not part of our Canon of Scripture. It does contain certain truths.

The Magisterium as affirmed that Jesus was the only child of Mary and no else.

I like to point out that when he was twelve yrs old, he, Mary, and Joseph went to Jerusalem for Passover. If there were other children, there they are completely absent.

So no. Jesus had no brothers or sisters.
 
Justasking has returned, hopefully we can share a diaolouge. We left off at Luke chapter 1 verse 31.
We had already covered Luke 1, 26 – 30:
We’ve discussed the “full of grace” issue, now let’s continue with the following verses shall we?
Any questions? You (thinking as Mary) are engaged to Joseph. Any surprise you’ll conceive? Any reason to doubt the conception would be a result of sexual relations with your husband?
Mary was told by the angel that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her which was the source of her pregancy. See Luke 1:35.

She had no reason to think it would be by Joseph.
 
now i’m jumping in a little late and i have not read all the posts just 1-2 pages back so if this was brought up please excuse me. Would Joseph have relations with Mary? think about it for a min. we tend to think of things in our current culture but if Joseph truly believed Jesus was the savior Mary was like the temple with ark of the covenant. the holy of holys, do you believe as a observant Jew he would do any thing but care for and protect her?
 
now i’m jumping in a little late and i have not read all the posts just 1-2 pages back so if this was brought up please excuse me. Would Joseph have relations with Mary? think about it for a min. we tend to think of things in our current culture but if Joseph truly believed Jesus was the savior Mary was like the temple with ark of the covenant. the holy of holys, do you believe as a observant Jew he would do any thing but care for and protect her?
That’s an interesting way of looking at it celtic. I have trouble with this whole thing myself.
 
Mary was told by the angel that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her which was the source of her pregancy. See Luke 1:35.

She had no reason to think it would be by Joseph.
The angel told Mary how she would conceive the child after she had asked him “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?” - not before. You don’t make any sense at all, which makes having a discussion with you impossible.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
The angel told Mary how she would conceive the child after she had asked him “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?” - not before. You don’t make any sense at all, which makes having a discussion with you impossible.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
I tried explaining this too- just leave it to Tom. Please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top